3tam  %  Hibrarg  of 

Msqumtfyb  fag  Ijtm  tn 

%  Kihranj  erf 

Prmotfnn  (F^alogtral  ^mtttarg 


BS2410  ,N4213  1864 
Neander,  August,  1789-1850. 
History  of  the  planting  and 
training  of  the  Christian 
church  by  the 
apostles  / 


HISTORY 


PLANTING  AND  TRAINING 


THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

BY    THE    APOSTLES. 


DE.    AUGUSTUS  '^EAN  DEE 


TBANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN 

By  J.  E.  RYLAND. 


TRANSLATION    REVISED    AND    CORRECTED     ACCORDING     TO    THB 
FOURTH   GERMAN   EDITION, 

By  E.  &.  ROBINSON,  D.D., 

PHOPESSOB     m     THE     ROCHESTER     THEOLOGICAL     SEMLNABT. 


NEW    YORK: 
SHELDON     &     COMPANY 

BOSTON:  GOULD  &  LINCOLN. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1864,  by 

SHELDON    &    CO., 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 
of  New  York. 


P  K  E  F  A  Cf  B 


AMERICAN     EDITION 


Me.  Ryland's  translation  of  this  work  was  made  from  the 
third  edition  of  the  original,  and  was  first  published  in  1841.  In 
1847,  appeared  the  fourth  edition  of  the  original,  carefully  revised, 
and  containing  important  additions  and  modifications  in  the  His- 
tory itself,  besides  notices  of  all  the  criticisms  of  any  value  that  had 
been  made,  during  the  six  years  preceding,  on  the  third  edition. 
In  1851,  the  most  important  of  the  changes  found  in  this  fourth 
edition  were  embodied  by  Mr.  Byland  under  the  title  of  "  Additions 
and  Corrections,"  and  appended  to  his  translation.  To  say  nothing 
of  the  inconvenience  and  awkwardness  of  such  an  arrangement, 
there  remained,  necessarily,  a  large  number  of  alterations,  both  in 
the  notes  and  in  the  text,  of  which  no  notice  could  be  taken  without 
a  thorough  revision  of  the  translation  itself.  To  make  such  a 
revision  has  been  the  attempt  of  the  editor  in  the  present  edition. 
And  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  say,  that,  with  all  the  merits  of  Mr. 
Byland  as  a  translator — which  are  not  few  nor  unacknowledged  by 
those  acquainted  with  his  labors — there  yet  remained  in  his  version 
of  this  History,  not  only  occasional  misapprehensions  of  meaning, 
but  obscurities  too  numerous  and  too  annoying  to  be  perpetuated 
in  a  book  which  so  large  a  circle  of  readers  were  desirous  of 
profiting  by. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  superfluous  to  add,  at  this  late  day,  that  no 
work  of  Meander  exhibits  more  conspicuously  his  best  characteris- 
tics as  a  fervid  Christian  theologian  and  a  sagacious  and  critical 
historian,    than  his   "Planting    and    Training  of   the   Christian 


lv  PREFACE   TO   THE    AMERICAN   EDITION. 

Church."  The  work  belongs  to  a  department  of  theological  litera- 
ture of  which  the  venerated  author  was  the  virtual  creator.  It 
opened  a  field  of  inquiry  which  has  since  been  diligently  cultivated, 
but  on  which  no  one  has  surpassed  or  even  equalled,  in  skill  and 
success,  its  first  occupant. 

It  is  believed  that  the  volume,  as  it  now  stands,  will  be  intel- 
ligible to  all  readers  who  are  interested  in  the  subjects  of  which  it 
treats.  Its  quotations  from  other  languages  have  all  been  rendered 
into  English,  both  in  the  text  and  in  the  notes,  so  that  no  reader 
need  longer  be  disturbed  by  them.  The  numerous  references  to 
the  author's  "Church  History"  and  "Life  of  Christ,"  have  been 
made  to  conform  to  the  American  translations  and  well-known 
editions  of  these  works. 

E.  G.  ROBINSON. 

Eochester,  Sept.  21,  1864. 


DEDICATION  OF  THE  FIRST  VOLUME. 


TO  THE 

RIGHT  REVEREND  DR.  F.  EHRENBERG-, 

ROYAL   CHAPLAIN,    MEMBER   OF   THE   SUPREME   CONSISTORY,   ETC.,    ETC. 


My  Deeply  Revered  and  Very  Dear  Friend — 

I  trust  you  will  receive  this  work,  with  all  its  defects,  as  the  offering  of  a 
sincere  heart ;  as  a  small  token  of  my  cordial  veneration  and  love,  and  of  that 
sincere  gratitude  which  I  have  long  felt  impelled  to  express  for  the  edification  I 
have  derived  from  your  discourses.  May  a  gracious  God  long  allow  you  to  labor 
and  shine  among  us  for  the  welfare  of  his  Church,  with  that  holy  energy  which 
He  has  bestowed  upon  you,  with  the  spirit  of  Christian  wisdom  and  freedom — the 
spirit  of  true  freedom,  exalted  above  all  the  strife  of  human  parties — which  the 
Son  of  God  alone  bestows,  and  which  is  especially  requisite  for  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  in  our  times,  agitated  and  distracted  as  they  are  by  so  many  conflicts ! 
This  is  the  warmest  wish  of  one  who,  with  all  his  heart,  calls  himself  yours. 

Thus  I  wrote  on  the  22d  of  May,  1832 ;  and  after  six  years  I  again  repeat, 
with  all  my  heart,  the  words  expressive  of  dedication,  of  gratitude,  and  of  devout 
wishes  to  the  Giver  of  all  perfect  gifts.  Since  that  portion  of  time  (not  unim- 
portant in  our  agitated  age)  has  passed  away,  I  have  to  thank  you,  dear  and 
inmostly-revered  man,  for  many  important  words  of  edification  and  instruction 
which  I  have  received  from  your  lips  in  public,  as  well  as  for  the  precious  gift* 
which  has  often  administered  refreshment  to  myself  and  others.  Yes,  with  all  my 
heart  I  agree  with  those  beautiful  sentiments  which  form  the  soul  of  your  dis- 
courses, and  bind  me  with  such  force  to  your  person.  God  grant  that  we  may 
ever  humbly  and  faithfully  hold  fast  the  truth  which  does  not  seek  for  reconcilia- 
tion amidst  contrarieties,  but  is  itself  unsought  the  right  mean !  God  grant  (what 
is  far  above  all  theological  disputations)  that  the  highest  aim  of  our  labors  may  be 
to  produce  the  image  of  Christ  in  the  souls  of  men — that  to  our  latest  breath  we 
may  keep  this  object  in  view  without  wavering,  fast  bound  to  one  another  in  true 
love,  each  one  in  his  own  sphere,  unmoved  by  the  vicissitudes  of  opinion  and  the 
collisions  of  party ! 

.    Let  me  add  as  a  subordinate  wish,  that  you  would  soon  favor  us  with  a  volume 
of  discourses,  to  testify  of  this  "  one  thing-that  is  needful." 

A.  NEANDER. 

Berlin,  SOth  May,  183S. 


It  gives  me  very  special  satisfaction,  dearest  and  most  honored  friend,  to  be 

able  to  re-dedicate,  and,  with  renewed  wishes  and  expression  of  thanks,  to  offer 

a^ain  to  you,  after  you  have  reached  your  seventieth  year,  this  book  in  its  present 

new  form. 

A.  NEANDER. 

Berlin,  April  7,  1847. 

*  Alluding  probably  to  a  volume  of  Sermons  already  published.— Tr. 


DEDICATION    OF   THE    SECOND    VOLUME 


TO  MY  DEAR  AND  HONORED  COLLEAGUE  AND  FRIEND,  THE 

REV.  DR.  NITZSCH, 

EOYAL  MENBEB  OF  THE  OONSISTORIAL  COURT,  AND  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  FREDERICK  WILLIAM  UNIVERSITY 
OP  BEBLIN. 


It  was  my  purpose,  when  issuing  the  last  volume  of  the  new  edition  of  my 
Church  History,  to  greet  you  from  afar  with  a  hearty  word  or  two,  and  to  express 
to  you  the  satisfaction  I  felt  that  we  were  to  be  able  to  call  you  ours ;  that,  at  a 
period  so  difficult  for  those  who  have  to  represent  higher  interests — a  period  fitted 
to  remind  every  one  so  forcibly  of  his  need  of  aid — we  were  to  win  in  you  so 
noble  and  valuable  a  supplement  to  our  Faculty ;  but  I  relinquished  the  purpose  I 
then  had,  because,  to  me  at  least,  there  had  come  no  certain  knowledge  that  my 
hope  was  to  be  fulfilled.  So  I  will  now  express  what  I  then  had  in  mind,  as  this 
is  the  first  opportunity  I  have  had  for  saying  a  word  publicly.  I  speak  only  in 
fulfilment  of  my  original  purpose.  Accept,  then,  what  I  offer  out  of  a  true,  frank 
heart.  With  differing  endowments  and  diversified  gifts,  serve  we  the  one  Lord, 
who  assigns  to  each  his  position  and  uses  as  He  will.  We  are  in  harmony  in  the 
one  great  cause  for  which  our  science  shall  serve  only  as  an  organ.  We  are  agreed 
in  the  conviction  that  in  this  great  crisis,  amid  the  pangs  of  this  transition  period, 
all  depends  on  our  being  decided  for  the  one  thing  needful,  not  compromising  and 
parleying  with  the  profane  spirit  of  this  world,  while  yet  we  allow  freedom  in  those 
various  stages  of  development  which  only  a  higher  wisdom  knows  how  to  conduct 
to  the  one  goal  of  the  better  future,  and  while,  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  our  own  defects,  we  quench  not  the  glimmering  wick.  Of  this  con- 
viction you  have  already  testified  in  the  transactions  of  the  General  Synod  on  the 
Creed  question.  Now  may  the  Spirit  of  God  ever  bind  us  more  closely  to  one 
another,  and  purify  us  of  every  thing  which  could  divide  us ;  may  He  bless  our 
cooperation  in  the  one  great  work  and  for  the  one  great  end.  May  He  long  pre- 
serve you  to  our  University,  and  through  you,  as  our  pastor,  so  work  that  our 
University  shall  become  more  and  more  Christian,  shall  be  transformed  into  a 
icorJcshop  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  where  science  is  elaborated  for  divine  ends ;  espe- 
cially that  that  may  be  more  and  more  awaked  and  diffused  which  you  in  your 
last  sermon  (for  which,  as  well  as  for  other  printed  and  spoken  discourses,  I  thank 
you)  have  so  appropriately  set  forth — the  opposite  of  the  contracted  understanding 
of  our  time — the  understanding  of  the  heart,  without  which  nothing  of  divine  things 
can  be  understood  by  any  one. 

Cordially  yours, 

A.  NEANDER. 

Berlin,  July  19,  1847. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


It  was  certainly  my  intention  to  have  allowed  my  representa- 
tion of  the  Christian  religion  and  Church  in  the  apostolic  age  to 
follow  the  completion  of  the  whole  of  my  Church  History,  or  at 
least  of  the  greater  part  of  it ;  but  the  wishes  and  entreaties  of 
many  persons,  expressed  both  in  writing  and  by  word  of  mouth, 
have  prevailed  upon  me  to  alter  my  plan.  Those,  too,  who  took 
an  interest  in  my  mode  of  conceiving  the  development  of  Christian- 
ity, were  justified  in  demanding  an  account  of  the  manner  in  which 
I  conceived  the  origin  of  this  process,  on  which  the  opinions  of  men 
are  so  much  divided  through  the  conflicting  influences  of  the  various 
theological  tendencies  in  this  critical  period  of  our  German  Evan- 
gelical Church;  and  perhaps,  if  it  please  God,  a  thoroughly- 
matured  and  candidly-expressed  conviction  on  the  subjects  here 
discussed,  may  furnish  many  a  one  who  is  engaged  in  seeking,  with 
a  connecting  link  for  the  comprehension  of  his  own  views,  even  if 
this  representation,  though  the  result  of  protracted  and  earnest 
inquiry,  should  contain  no  new  disclosures. 

As  for  my  relation  to  all  who  hold  the  conviction,  that  faith  in 
Jesus,  the  Saviour  of  sinful  humanity,  as  it  has  shown  itself  since 
the  first  founding  of  the  Christian  Church  to  be  the  fountain  of 
divine  life,  will  prove  itself  the  same  to  the  end  of  time,  and  that 
from  this  faith  a  new  creation  will  arise  in  the  Christian  Church 
and  in  our  part  of  the  world,  which  has  been  preparing  amidst  the 
storms  of  spring — to  all  such  persons  I  hope  to  be  bound  by  the 
bond  of  Christian  fellowship,  the  bond  of  "  the  true  Catholic  spirit" 
as  it  is  termed  by  an  excellent  English  theologian  of  the  seventeenth 


Vlll  PEEFACE   TO   THE   FIEST   EDITION. 

century.*  But  I  can  not  agree  with  the  conviction  of  those  among 
them  who  think  that  this  new  creation  will  be  only  a  repetition  of 
what  took  place  in  the  sixteenth  -  or  seventeenth  century,  and  that 
the  whole  dogmatic  system,  and  the  entire  mode  of  contemplating 
divine  and  human  things,  f  must  return  as  it  then  existed. 

On  this  point,  I  assent  with  my  whole  soul  to  what  my  deeply 
revered  and  beloved  friend,  Steudel,  lately  expressed,  so  deserving 
of  consideration  in  our  times,  and  especially  to  be  commended  to 
the  attention  of  our  young  theologians.;}:  He  admirably  remarks : 
"  But  exactly  this,  and  only  this,  is  the  preeminence  of  the  one 
truth,  that  it  maintains  its  triumphant  worth  under  all  changes  of 
form;"  and  Niebuhr  detected,  in  the  eagerness  to  restore  the  old, 
an  eagerness  for  novelty :  "  When  the  novelty  of  the  thing  is  worn 
away  by  use,  we  are  prone  to  return  to  the  old,  which  then  becomes 
new  again,  and  thus  the  ball  is  thrown  backwards  and  forwards."§ 

*  We  meet  with  a  beautiful  specimen  of  such  a  spirit  in  what  has  been  admirably  said 
by  a  respected  theologian  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  Joseph  John  Gurney :  "  It  can  scarcely 
be  denied,  that  in  that  variety  of  administration  through  which  the  saviug  principles  of 
religion  are  for  the  present  permitted  to  pass,  there  is  much  of  a  real  adaptation  to  a  cor- 
responding variety  of  mental  condition.  Well,  therefore,  may  we  bow  with  thankfulness 
before  that  infinite  and  unsearchable  Being  who,  in  all  our  weakness,  follows  us  with  His 
love,  and  through  the  diversified  mediums  of  religion  to  which  the  several  classes  of  true 
Christians  are  respectively  accustomed,  is  still  pleased  to  reveal  to  them  all  the  same  cruci- 
fied Redeemer,  and  to  direct  their  footsteps  into  one  path  of  obedience,  holiness,  and 
peace."  See  Observations  on  the  distinguishing  Views  and  Practices  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  by  Joseph  John  Gurney,  ed.  vii.,  London,  1834.  Words  fit  to  shame  theologians 
who  are  burning  with  zeal  for  the  letter  and  forms,  as  if  on  these  depended  the  essence 
of  religion,  whose  life  and  spirit  are  rooted  in  facts. 

f  Well  might  the  noble  words  of  Luther  be  applied  to  those  who  cling  to  the  old 
rotten  posts  of  a  scaffolding  raised  by  human  hands,  as  if  they  were  needed  for  the  divine 
building  :  "  When  at  a  window  I  have  gazed  on  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  the  whole  beau- 
tiful vault  of  heaven,  and  saw  no  pillars  on  which  the  Builder  had  set  such  a  vault;  yet 
the  heavens  fell  not  in ;  and  that  vault  still  stands  firm.  Now  there  are  simple  folk  who 
look  about  for  such  pillars,  and  would  fain  grasp  and  feel  them.  But  since  they  can  not 
do  this,  they  quake  and  tremble,  as  if  the  heavens  would  certainly  fall  in,  and  for  no  other 
reason  than  because  they  can  not  grasp  and  see  the  pillars ;  if  they  could  but  lay  hold  of 
them,  then  the  heavens  (they  think)  would  stand  firm  enough." 

%  Tn  the  Tubingen  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1832,  part  i.,  p.  33.  Blessed  be  the  mem- 
ory of  this  beloved  man,  who  left  this  world  a  few  months  ago,  and  is  no  longer  to  be  seen 
in  the  holy  band  of  combatants  for  that  evangelical  truth  which  was  the  aim,  the  centre, 
and  the  soul  of  his  whole  life,  and  the  firm  anchor  of  his  hope  in  death,  when  he  proved 
himself  to  be  one  of  those  faithful  teachers  of  whom  it  may  be  said—"  whose  faith  follow, 
considering  the  end  of  their  conversation." 

§  One  of  the  many  golden  sentences  of  this  great  man  in  his  letters,  of  which  we  would 
recommend  the  second  volume  especially  to  all  young  theologians. 


PREFACE  TO   THE   FIRST   EDITION. 


In  truth,  whatever  is  connected  with  the  peculiarities  of  the 
forms  of  human  cultivation,  as  these  change,  goes  the  way  of  all 
flesh;  but  the  Word  of  God,  which  is  destined  by  a  perpetual 
youthfulness  of  power  to  make  all  things  new,  abides  forever. 
Thus  the  difference  existing  between  these  persons  and  myself,  will 
certainly  show  itself  in  our  conception  of  many  important  points  in 
this  department  of  history ;  but,  in  my  judgment,  these  differences 
are  only  scientific,  and  ought  not  to  disturb  that  fellowship  which 
is  above  all  science.  But  I  can  also  transport  myself  to  the  posi- 
tion of  those  to  whom  these  objects  must  appear  in  a  different 
light ;  for  the  rise  of  such  differences  is  in  this  critical  period 
unavoidable,  and  far  better  than  the  previous  indifference  and 
lifeless  uniformity.  And  even  in  zeal  for  a  definite  form,  I  know 
how  to  esteem  and  to  love  a  zeal  for  the  essence  which  lies  at  the 
bottom,*  and  I  can  never  have  anything  in  common  with  those  who 
will  not  do  justice  to  such  zeal,  or,  instead  of  treating  it  with  the 
respect  that  is  always  due  to  zeal  and  affection  for  what  is  holy, 
with  Jesuitical  craft  aim  at  rendering  others  suspected,  by  imputing 
to  them  sinister  motives  and  designs. 

A.  NEANDEK. 

Berlin,  29th  May,  1882. 


*  Provided  it  be  the  true  zeal  of  simplicity,  which  accompanies  humility,  and  where 
sagacity  does  not  predominate  over  simplicity ;  but  by  no  means  that  zeal  which,  iu 
coupling  itself  with  the  modern  coxcombry  of  a  super-refined  education,  endeavors  to 
season  subjects  with  it  to  which  it  is  least  adapted,  in  order  to  render  them  palatable  to 
the  vitiated  tastes  that  loathes  a  simple  diet ;  and  thus  proves  its  own  unsoundness.  A 
caricature  jumble  of  the  moBt  contradictory  elements,  at  which  every  sound  feeling  must 
revolt 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FOURTH  EDITION. 


I  repeat  here  what  I  said  in  the  preface  to  the  third  edition  of 
this  work :  we  adhere  to  the  theologia  pectoris,  which  is  also  the 
true  theology  of  the  spirit — the  German  Theology,  as  Luther  called 
it.  It  was  the  reaction  of  such  a  theology  from  the  aridity  of  the 
later  period  of  scholasticism,  which  produced  the  Reformation ;  and 
it  is  only  from  the  depths  of  the  heart  that  any  genuine  German 
regeneration  of  theology  can  proceed.  I  shall  not  cease,  therefore, 
to  protest  against  that  one-sided  intellectualism  which  is  destructive 
not  only  to  heart  but  to  mind  also,  since  these  can  be  healthfully, 
only  when  harmoniously,  developed — against  that  ever-spreading 
fanaticism  of  the  intellect  which  threatens  to  destroy  all  deep-rooted 
life,  all  high  aspiration,  all  that  free  flight  of  the  spirit  which  keeps 
men  ever  young,  and  to  convert  man,  from  whose  true  nature  a 
desire  for  the  supernatural  and  for  that  beyond  the  present  life,  is 
inseparable,  into  a  merely  intelligent,  very  sagacious  animal.  To 
this  protest  belong  also  many  things  which  I  have  felt  constrained 
to  say  in  the  notes  to  this  new  edition,  against  various  tendencies 
of  the  present  time. 

In  such  points  of  controversy  as  come  under-  notice  in  the  pres- 
ent edition,  we  are  concerned  for  the  most  part  only  with  single 
questions  of  criticism.  But  the  profounder  observer  will  perceive 
that  the  principles  underlying  these  are  closely  connected  with 
those  more  general  questions  which  are  agitating  science  and  life 
at  this  critical  period  of  time.  Single  inquiries,  it  is  true,  must  be 
pursued  independently,  and  in  accordance  with  their  own  scientific 
laws  ;  but  this  does  not  stand  in  the  way  of  our  pointing  out  their 
connection  with  questions  of  a  more  general,  fundamental  nature ; 
for  it  is  this  connection,  which,  between  those  standing  at  opposite 


PREFACE  TO   THE  FOURTH   EDITION.  XI 

points  of  view,  renders  a  mutual  understanding  difficult,  if  not 
impossible. 

The  scientific,  prophetic  glance  of  a  Melancthon  led  him,  some 
centuries  ago,  to  point  out  that  extreme  limit  to  which  the  opposi- 
tion between  the  supernatural  and  natural  principles  would  lead, 
when  he,  in  a  letter  to  CEcolampadius,  of  the  12th  of  January,  1530, 
writes :  "  Si  rationem  spectes,  nihilo  magis  cum  carnis  judicio 
reliqua  fidei  dogmata  de  divinitate  Christi,  de  resurrectione,  adde 
et,  quod  caput  est,  de  immortalitate  animi,  -nepl  npovoiag  conveniunt, 
quam  hie  articulus  nepl  evxapwriat;."  Hidden  antagonisms  are 
becoming  more  and  more  widely  separated,  more  and  more  clearly 
understood,  and  more  and  more  sharply  opposed  to  each  other; 
and  thus  this  broadest  and  deepest  reaching  of  questions  is  to  be 
brought  by  history — that  is,  not  by  the  universal  spirit  in  history, 
as  the  language  of  the  day  is,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  whom 
the  universal  spirit,  nolens  volens,  must  do  homage — to  its  de- 
cision, a  decision  which  will  introduce  a  new  period  in  Church 
History. 

But  I  must  also,  with  equal  persistency,  protest  against  the 
theological  tendency  so  beautifully  and  so  forcibly  characterized  by 
the  sainted  Schleiermacher  in  his  Essay  on  the  Symbolic  Books ;  a 
tendency,  he  says,  "which  would  blot  out  a  well-known  and 
important  period  of  time,  and  wiping  off,  as  with  a  sponge,  the 
characters  which  that  period  has  written  upon  our  historical  tablet, 
would,  far  more  easily  than  the  old  lines  of  a  codex  rescriptus  can  be 
restored,  reproduce  the  writings  of  the  seventeenth  century  and 
account  them  as  our  own."  It  is  a  tendency  which,  arresting  the 
progress  of  development  in  theology,  would,  in  impatient  haste, 
prematurely  seize  the  goal;  although  it  exhibits  a  praise- worthy 
elevation  of  spirit  as  regards  that  which  is  lifted  above  the  change 
of  days,  that  in  which  there  is  no  place  for  the  trite  newspaper 
categories,  "  progress  and  regress."  My  own  soul  responds  to  what 
my  dear  friend,  Julius  Miiller,  has  said  against  this,  as  against  other 
theological  tendencies,  in  his  excellent  article  on  the  First  General 
Synod,  an  essay  of  more  than  mere  transient  and  accidental  value. 
With  this  tendency,  also,  many  things  which  I  have  had  to  say  in 
this  new  edition,  in  defence  of  my  view  of  history  and  criticism, 
will  come  in  conflict.    I  cheerfullv  submit  to  the  charge  of  incon- 


Xll  PREFACE  TO   THE   FOUETH   EDITIOIT. 

sistency  and  lack  of  decision,  from  advocates  of  both  these  views 
which  I  have  been  constrained  to  oppose. 

The  second  volume,  which  is  to  be  immediately  put  to  press, 
will  soon  appear.  Then  I  will  look  toward  the  time  which  will 
permit  me,  if  the  gracious  God  continue  to  me  life,  health,  and 
strength,  to  give  to  the  public  the  continuation  of  my  Church  His- 
tory— the  history  of  the  time  preparatory  to  the  Eeformation — a 
work  to  which  my  studies  and  labors,  during  the  preparation  of 
this,  have  ever  been  directed. 

The  excellent  new  map,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  the 
distinguished  Dr.  Kiepert,  will  doubtless  be  found  very  useful  and 
welcome  to  the  readers  of  this  book.  By  the  care  of  my  esteemed 
publisher,  it  can  be  obtained  separately,  and  may  thus  be  of  wider 
service  to  students. 

In  conclusion,  I  thank  my  dear  young  friend,  Cand.  Schneider, 
from  Silesia — who  knows  how  to  combine  so  well  different 
branches  of  activity — for  the  fidelity,  care,  and  skill  with  which  he 
has  read  the  proof  of  this  book,  verified  its  citations,  and  arranged 
its  table  of  contents. 

A.  NEAKDER. 

Bmuw,  April  7,  1S4T. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION. 

PAQM 

Sources  of  this  History,  the  Epistles  and  the  Acts, 1 

General  evidence  of  the  credibility  of  the  Acts. 1-4 


BOOK    I. 

THE   CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  IN  PALESTINE    PREVIOUS   TO   ITS 
INTRODUCTION  AMONG-  HEATHEN  NATIONS. 

CHAPTER    I. 

THE    CHRISTIAN     CHURCH    ON    ITS    FIRST    APPEARANCE    AS     A    DISTINCT 
RELIGIOUS   COMMUNITY. 

The  personal  Christ  the  basis  of  the  Church — The  Pentecostal  miracle  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Apostolic  Church 5-7 

Anxious  waiting  for  the  feast  of  Pentecost  by  the  disciples 7-8 

The  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost  and  the  phenomena 

accompanying  it 8-11 

The  gift  of  tongues  not  a  supernatural  knowledge  of  foreign  languages,  but  the 

new  language  of  the  new  spirit  that  animated  the  disciples 12-17 

An  ideal  element  infused  into  the  historical 18 

Peter's  discourse  and  its  offects — His  call  to  repentance,  faith,  and  baptism 18-20 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE  FIRST  FORM   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITY,  AND   THE  FIRST  GERM 
OF  THE   CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH. 

The  formation  of  a  community — One  article  of  faith — Baptism  into  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah — Probably  only  one  baptismal  formula — Imperfect  knowledge  and 

mixed  character  of  the  first  converts 20-22 

The  first  form  of  the  Christian  community  and  worship — The  Agapae 22-23 

Community  of  goods — Influence  of  Christianity  on  social  relations— Orders  of 

monkhood — The  St.  Simonians 23-25 

The  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira 25-26 

Adherence  to  the  Temple- worship 27-28 

The  institution  of  Deacons 29-33 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

TAGFS 

The  institution  of  Presbyters — Originally  for  the  purpose  of  government  rather 

than  of  instruction 33-34 

Means  of  instruction — Teachers;  didaoKa?aa,  npo(fnjT€ia,  napuKXriaic 35—36 

Gradual  transition  from  Judaism  to  Christianity 36-3*7 

CHAPTER    III. 

THE   OUTWARD   CONDITION    OF   THE    PRIMITIVE     CHURCH  J     PERSECUTIONS 
AND    THEIR    CONSEQUENCES. 

The  Church  at  first  favored  by  the  Pharisees  and  opposed  by  the  Sadducees. ...  38 

The  cure  of  the  impotent  man — Peter  and  John  brought  before  the  Sanhedrim — 

The  increase  of  believers — Peter's  address — Gamaliel 38-46 

Christianity  in  direct  conflict  with  Pharisaism — Stephen  the  forerunner  of  Paul — 
His  views  of  Christianity  in  opposition  to  the  permanence  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual — His  discourse  before  the  Sanhedrim — His  martyrdom,  and  its  effects.. .       46-57 


BOOK    II. 

THE  FIRST  SPREAD  OF  CHRISTIANITY  FROM  THE  CHURCH  AT 
JERUSALEM  TO  OTHER  PARTS,  AND  ESPECIALLY  AMONG 
HEATHEN  NATIONS. 

Samaria — Its  religious  state — The  Goetae — Simon  Magus — Philip's  preaching 
and  miracles  in  Samaria — Simon's  baptism 58-60 

The  sending  of  Peter  and  John  to  Samaria — Miraculous  manifestations  of  the 

Spirit 61-63 

A  later  Simon — Simonians 63-64 

Philip's  further  missionary  labors 64—65 

Examination  of  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  Acts  on  the  ground  of  Peter's 
vacillation  at  Antioch  at  a  later  day 66-68 

Formation  of  Gentile  Churches — Enlarged  views  of  the  Apostles  produced  by 
internal  revelation  and  outward  events 68-69 

Peter's  labors  at  Lydda  and  Joppa — Cornelius  the  Centurion: — A  proselyte  of  the 
Gate — His  prayers  and  fasting — Vision  of  an  Angel — Peter's  vision — His 
address  to  Cornelius — The  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bestowed  on  the  Gentile 
converts 69-77 


BOOK  III. 

THE  SPREAD  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  AND  FOUNDING  OF  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN CHURCH  AMONG  THE  GENTILES  BY  THE  INSTRUMEN- 
TALITY OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

CHAPTER    I. 

paul's  preparation  and  call  to  be  the  apostle  of  the  gentiles. 

The  divine  wisdom  in  Paul's  preparation  for  his  office 78-79 

Paul  the  representative  of  the  Protestant  principle  among  the  Apostles 79 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGES 

His  birthplace,  parentage,  and  education • 80-82 

His  strictness  and  depth  of  experience  in  legal  piety — Resemblance  to  Augustine 

and  Luther — Zeal  for  Judaism — Journey  to  Damascus 82-84 

His  miraculous  conversion — Unsatisfactory  explanation  on  natural  principles — 
Or  considered  as  merely  internal — A  real  appearance  of  the  risen  Saviour — 
Its  effects 85"92 

Paul  preaches  the  Gospel  at  Damascus — Goes  into  Arabia — Return  to  Damascus 

— and  flight — Visit  to  Jerusalem  and  its  object * 92-97 

Early  development  of'his  special  type  of  doctrine— What  he  means  by  "  revela- 
tion" as  the  source  of  his  religious  knowledge  (anoicaXviTTeiv  and  <pavspnvv) — 
His  use  of  Memoirs  of  Christ '• 97-103 

His  return  to  Tarsus  and  labors  in  Ctlieia 103 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE    CHURCH     AT    ANTIOCH     THE     GENTILE     MOTHER-CHURCH,     AND     ITS 
RELATION   TO    THE   JEWISH    MOTHER-CHURCH. 

Gentile  Christians  at  Antiocb— Barnabas  at  Antioch— invites  Paul  thither— The 
name  Christians  first  given  to  believers — Contributions  from  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem— Contributions  from  the  Church  at  Antioch  to  the  Church  at  Jeru- 
salem— Persecution  by  Herod  Agrippa 1 04-106 

Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem — "Whether  the  same  as  that  mentioned  in  Gal.  ii.  1. — 

Barnabas  and  Paul  sent  from  Antioch  to  preach  among  the  Gentiles 107-111 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE     PROPAGATION     OF     CHRISTIANITY     FROM     ANTIOCH     BY     PAUL     AND 
BARNABAS. 

Their  visit  with  Mark  to  Cyprus— Conversion  of  the  Proconsul  Sergius  Paulus— 

The  Goes  Barjesus 111-113 

Their  stay  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia— Bitterness  of  the  Jews— Persecutions 113-115 

Iconium— Lystra— Cure  of  the  lame  man— The  Apostles  supposed  to  be  Zeus 

and  Hermes— The  popular  tumult— Their  return  to  Antioch 116-119 

CHAPTER    IV. 

CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  THE  JEWISH  AND  GENTILE  CHRISTIANS,  AND 
ITS  SETTLEMENT THE  INDEPENDENT  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  GEN- 
TILE  CHURCH. 

Dispute  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  respecting  Circumcision- 
Mission  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem— Paul's  private  conferences  with 
the  Apostles— His  Apostleship  acknowledged— His  controversy  with  the 
Jewish  believers,  and  opposition  to  the  circumcision  of  Titus 119-124 

The  Apostolic  Convention.— Peter's  address— Barnabas  and  Paul  give  an  account 
of  their  success  among  the  Gentiles— Proposal  of  James— The  moderation  and 
conciliatory  spirit  of  Paul  and  James— Epistle  to  the  Gentile  Christians  in 
Syria  and  Cilicia— Return  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  Antioch— The  important 
results  of  this  Convention 125-134 


CO  NTENTS. 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE   CONSTITUTION   OP  THE     CHURCH,    AND     THE     ECCLESIATICAL     USAGES 
OF    THE    GENTILE    CHRISTIANS. 

-      PAGES 

The  peculiar  nature  of  the  Christian  community — all  Christians  Priests — 
equally  related  to  Christ— and  in  a  relation  of  fraternal  equality  to  one 
another 134-136 

The  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  varieties  of  mental  character  and  natural 
endowments — The  idea  of  Charisms — The  gifts  of  dvvd/xeig,  ai]iisla,  ripara.. .    136-138 

1.  Charisms  or  gifts  for  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  "  teaching,"  "  prophesying," 
"speaking  with  tongues,"   "interpretation  of  tongues,"  "trying  of  spirits," 

"  word  of  knowledge,"  and  "  word  of  wisdom" 136-144 

2.  Charisms  relating  to  other  kinds  of  outward  activity — these  distinguished  aa 
charisms  for  government  and  the  charism  of  faith  (miraculous  power) 144-146 

Charisms  relating  to  the  government  of  the  Church,  Ttpea^vrepoi,  inicKonoi — 
Elders  or  Presbyters  and  Overseers  or  Bishops,  originally  the  same — Exclu- 
sion of  females  from  the  office  of  public  teaching 147-150 

Originally  three  orders  of  teachers — Apostles,  Evangelists,  Teachers — Relation 
of  the  last  to  Elders  and  Overseers 150-154 

The  office  of  Deaconesses 154-155 

Ordination — Election  to  offices 156 

3.  The  Christian  Worship — Independence  of  the  Mosaic  Ritual — Hence  no  dis- 
tinction of  days — No  Christian  feasts  mentioned  by  Paul 156-158 

The  Christian  Sabbath — Its  special  reference  to  the  Resurrection  of  Christ — No 
yearly  commemoration  of  the  Resurrection 158-160 

Baptism — The  Formula — Symbolical  meaning  of  the  act  of  submersion  and 
emersion — Infant  Baptism  probably  not  of  apostolic  origin — Substitutionary 
Baptism— The  influence  of  the  parental  relation  on  the  offspring  of  Christians  160-165 

The  Lord's  Supper 165 

Advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  Gentile  Converts — Preparation  of  mankind 
for  a  reception  of  the  Gospel — by  a  sense  of  guilt  and  unhappiness — Its  direct 
contrariety  to  Heathenism — Dangers  from  the  corruption  of  Morals — and  from 
philosophical  speculations 165-167 

CHAPTER  VI. 

SECOND   MISSIONARY   JOURNEY   OF  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 

The  separation  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  account  of  Mark — Barnabas  with  Mark 
visits  Cyprus — Paul  and  Silas  pass  through  Syria  to  Cilicia  and  Pisidia — Meet 

with  Timothy  who  is  circumcised  and  becomes  a  companion  of  Paul 167-170 

Paul  visits  Phrygia — Churches  there  founded  by  Epaphras  and  others 170 

Paul  in  Galatia — Called  supernaturally  to  Macedonia 170-173 

Paul  at  Philippi— Baptism  of  Lydia — Persecution — Conversion  of  the  Philippian 

Gaoler 173-177 

Paul  at  Thessalonica — Addresses  both  Jews  and  Gentiles — Gains  a  livelihood  by 
tent-making — His  expectations  of  the  near  approach  of  the  second  coming  of 

Christ — Fanatical  opposition  of  the  Jews — Proceeds  to  Bercea 178-182 

Paul  at  Athens— The  religious  character  of  the  Athenians — Paul  disputes  with 
the  Philosophers— The  relation  of  the  Stoics  and  the  Epicureans  to  Chris- 
tianity   182-184 


CONTENTS.  XV11 

PAOM 

Paul's  discourse— His  appeal  to  the  religious  principle  implanted  in  human 
nature— The  Altar  to  an  unknown  God— Polytheism— The  one  living  God- 
Announcement  of  a  Redeemer— The  effect  of  his  discourse— Dionysius  the 

184-190 

Areopagite 

Timothy  returning  from  Macedonia  sent  again  to  Thessalonica 190-191 

Paul  at  Corinth— Two  chief  obstacles  to  the  reception  of  the  Gospel— fondness 

for  speculation— and  for  sensual  indulgences— Meets  with  Aquila  and  PrisciUa 

—The  Church  formed  principally  of  Gentile  converts— The  Proconsul  Gallic— 

Paul's  labors  in  Achaia •  •  r  191"195 

Thessalonica— Information  of  the  state  of  the  Church  brought  by  Timothy—  The 

First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians— Enthusiastic  tendencies— A  forged  epistle— 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians— -The  signs  preceding   the    second 

coming  of  Christ— Marks  of  a  genuine  epistle 196-201 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE   APOSTLE  PAUL'S   JOURNEY    TO     ANTIOCH,   AND     HIS     RENEWED    MIS- 
SIONARY   LABORS   AMONG   THE   HEATHEN. 

Paul's  journey  to  Jerusalem— His  vow  and  offering  in  the  Temple 202-203 

Paul  at  Antioch— His  meeting  with  Barnabas  and   Peter— His  reprimand  of 

Peter— Revival  of  the  controversy  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  203-207 

Paul  visits  Phrygia  and  Galatia 20  ,_208 

Paul  at  Ephesus— His  labors  first  in  the  synagogue— Then  among  the  Gentiles— 
the  Jewish  Goetse— The  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  rebaptized— Receipt  of 

intelligence  from  the  churches  and  effect  on  him 203-212 

State  of  the  Galatian  Churches— Paul's  Epistk  to  the  .Galatians  written  by  his 
own  hand— Asserts  his  independent  apostleship— States  the  relation  of  Chris- 
tianity to  Judaism  and  Heathenism— Warns  them  against  seeking  for  justifica- 
tion by  the  law— Date  of  this  epistle 212-217 

State  of  the  Church  at  Corinth— Causes  of  its  disorders;  superficial  conversion, 

general  immorality,  divisions  occasioned  by  false  teachers 218-219 

Parties  in  the  Corinthian  Church-The  Petrine-The  Pauline— That  of  Apollos 

—That  of  Christ.. "  "  V  "   219*"3° 

Disputes  in  the  Corinthian  Church— Meat  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols— Marriage 
and  celibacy-Litigation  in  heathen  courts  of  justice— Irregularities  at  the 
celebration  of  the  AgapEe-Overvaluation  of  extraordinary  gifts-Opposition 

to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection n""i  " 

Where  and  by  what  means  Paul  received  accounts  of  the  disturbances  at  Corinth 

—His  second  visit  to  Corinth— His  lost  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 239-24- 

The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians— Occasioned  by  certain  questions  proposed 
by  the  Church  relative  to  the  epistle  not  now  extant— Its  contents— On  par- 
ties—On meat  offered  to  idols-On  marriage  and  celibacy-On  slavery-Its  s^ 

Paul's  plan's"  for  his  future  'labors-Mission  of  Timothy  to  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
-Return  of  Timothy-Titus  sent  to  Corinth-Popular  commotion  at  Ephesus 
against  Paul-Demetrius-Alexander-The  Asiarchs-Paul  leaves  Ephesus  249-256 

Paul  in  Macedonia-Titus  brings  information  respecting  the  Church  at  Corinth— 
The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ;  •  •  ■ 

Paul  after  spending  the  summer  and  autumn  in  Macedonia,  and  probably  visiting 
Elyria,  spends  the  winter  in  Achaia— His  intention  of  visiting  Rome-Hia 


C  OKTENTS, 

PAOES 


Epistle  to  the  Eomans— gent  by  the  deaconess  Phoebe— State  of  the  Church 

at  Rome— Contents  of  the  epistle 261_  ^ 

Paul's  great  collection  for  Jerusalem  for  the  removal  of  Jewish  prejudices'  against 

himself  and  the  Gentile  Christians ;~     272-274 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

THE  FIFTH  AND  LAST  JOURNEY   OF   PAUL  TO  JERUSALEM— ITS  IMMEDIATE 
CONSEQUENCES HIS    IMPRISONMENT    IN   PALESTINE. 

Paul  at  Philippi— Meets  the  overseers  of  the  Ephesian  Church  at  Miletus— His 

farewell  address ^  274-279 

Paul  warned  of  approaching  danger  at  Cajsarea []]  279 

Paul  at  Jerusa'em— His  conference  with  James  and  the  elders  of  the'church— 
His  Nazarite's  vow-The  rage  of  the  Jews-His  rescue  by  the  Roman  tri- 
bune—His appearance  before  the  Sanhedrim 279-284 

Paul's  imprisonment  at  Caesarea— His  appearance   before  Felix— Appeals  "to 

Cassar— Address  to  King  Agrippa— Sent  to  Rome 285-287 

Paul  at  Rome— His  condition  and  labors  there , * ,    \\  287-289 


CHAPTER    IX. 

PAUL    DURING    HIS    FIRST    CONFINEMENT    AT     ROME,    AND     THE     DEVELOP- 
MENT DURING  THAT   PERIOD    OF   THE   CHURCHES   FOUNDED    BY    HIM. 

Paul's  relation  to  the  Roman  State— To  the  Church  at  Rome— And  to  other 
Churches— His  care  of  the  Asiatic  Churches— Date  of  the  Epistles  to  the 
Colossians,  Ephesians,  and  Philemon— Epaphras  his  fellow-prisoner 290-293 

False  teachers  at  Colossas— Peculiarities  of  the  party— The  germ  of  Judaizing 

Gnosticism— Allied  to  the  sect  of  Cerinthus— Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. .  .294-302 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians— Sent  by  Tychicus— a  general   Epistle  to  the 

Churches  in  Lesser  Asia „ 302-305 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians W.'.W. 305 


CHAPTER    X. 

Paul's  labors  after  his  release  from  his  first  confinement  at 
rome,  to  his  martyrdom. 

Evidence  of  Paul's  release  from  his  first  confinement  at  Rome— Testimony  of 
Clemens  of  Rome— The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy— Causes  of  the  Neronian 
persecution 306-311 

Paul's  labors  after  his  release — In  Ephesus— In  Macedonia— The  First  Epistle 

to  Timothy— Paul  in  Crete— The  Epistle  to  Titus— Prospective  visit  to  Nicopolis.  311-317 

Paul  in  'Spain— His  Second  imprisonment— His  martyrdom  and  state  of  mind 
in  view  of  it— Release  of  Timothy 317-32C 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

BOOK    IV. 

A.  REVIEW  OF  THE  LABORS  OF  JAMES  AND  PETER  DURING  THE 
PERIOD  DESCRIBED  IN  BOOK  THIRD. 

CHAPTER    I. 

JAMES. 

pAon 

James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  and  Paul,  mark  the  two  extremes  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Christianity  from  Judaism, •  •  ■  321-324 

Whether  James  was  a  brother  or  only  a  near  relation  of  the  Lord,  and  identical 
with  the  Apostle  ?    Dr.  Schneckenburger's  hypothesis  that  there  was  only  one 

James,  examined, 

by  the  strictness  of  his  life ;  hence  called   The  Just— The 
testimony  of  Hegesippus, "         ' 

His  epistle  important  for  illustrating  the  state  of  the  Jewish-Christian  churches,  327 


James  distinguished  by  the  strictness  of  his  life;  hence  called  The  Just— The 

testimony  of  Hegesippus, 

His  epistle  important  for  illustrating  the  state  of  the  Jewish-Christian  churches, 
Reasons  for  believing  that  it  was  not  written  with  a  reference  to  Paul's  doctrinal 

328-333 

views, 

The  epistle  addressed   to   churches   consisting   entirely  or   chiefly    of  Jewish 

believers,  mostly  poor 

The  Christian  doctrines  imperfectly  developed  in  it— Its  importance  in  connexion 

with  the  other  writings  in  the  New  Testament, 336 

The  martyrdom  of  James ~ 

CHAPTER    II. 

THE    APOSTLE   PETER. 

He  occupied  a  middle  position  between  Paul  and  James, 338 

His  parentage— Natural  character— Call  to  the.apostleship, 338-341 

His  labors  in  propagating  the  Gospel, 341-343 

His  First  Epistle 343-347 

Probable  spuriousnes3  of  the  Second  Epistle 6ii   ^s 

Traditions  respecting  Peter's  martyrdom  at  Rome 348-353 


BOOK    V. 

THE  APOSTLE  JOHN  AND  HIS  MINISTRY  AS  THE  CLOSING  POINT 
OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

His  education-Maternal  influence-Early  piety-General  character-Contem- 
plative yet  ardent-His   piety  moulded  by  personal  intercourse  w.th    the  ^^ 
Saviour, i' •  \ ,ri,_n-q 

His  labors  and  conflicts  among  the  churches  in  Lesser  Asia, •  •  w     ooa 

Errors  prevalent  in  these  churches,   practical  and  theoretical-Especially  the 

Judaizing-TheAntinomian,theanti-JudaiZing  Gnostic,  and  the  Cennthian,  360-364 

Tradition  of  John's  banishment  to  Patmos-Authorship  of  the  Apocalypse 364-.b7 


XX  CONTENTS. 

PAGM 

John's  writings — Their  general  character — His  Gospel 368-371 

Hie  First  Epistle 371-375 

His  Second  Epistle — Injunctions  respecting  intercourse  with  false  teachers 375,  376 

His  Third  Epistle — Diotrephes, 376,  377 

Traditions  respecting  John's  labors  preserved  by  Clemens  Alexandrine  and 
Jerome — The  close  of  the  Apostolic  Age, 377-379 


BOOK     VI. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  DOCTRINE. 


The  living  unity  of.  the  doctrine  of  Christ  combined  with  a  variety  in  the  form3 
of  its  representation — Three  leading  varieties — The  Pauline,  the  Jacobean 
(with  the  intermediate  Petrine),  and  the  Johannean, 380 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE  PAULINE   DOCTRINE. 

Regard  must  be  had  to  Paul's  peculiarities  of  mind,  education,  sphere  of  labor, 

and  sources  of  Christian  knowledge, 381 

1.  The  connexion  and  contrast  of  Paul's  earlier  and  later  views  contained  in 
the  ideas  of  fiiKaioovvn  and  vo/ioc,  which  form  the  central  point  of  his  doc- 
trine,    382 

The  SiKaioovvrj  of  his  earlier  position  depended  on  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic 

law  (vofiiKT)) — The  Christian  dinaioovvr)  and  &v  correlative  ideas, 382 

The  fundamental  principle  of  his  later  or  Christian  views — No  righteousness  by 
the  works  of  the  law  available  before  God — No  essential  distinction  between 
the  ritual  and  moral  Ipya  vo/iov — The  idea  of  the  law  as  a  unity;  an  outward 
rule  of  action,  requiring  not  effecting  obedience — Applicable  to  the  universal 
law  of  conscience, 383 

"Works  the  marks  of  the  state  of  the  disposition ;  but  the  law  can  effect  no 
change  in  the  disposition — Hence  epya  vofiov  are  set  in  contrast  to  tpya  dyadd. 
(Eph.  ii.  10) 384 

The  law  not  deficient  a3  a  standard  of  duty, 385 

2.  The  central-point  of  the  Pauline  anthropology — Human  nature  alienated  from 
the  divine  life  and  in  opposition  to  the  law. 

a.  The  principle  that  opposes  the  law. 

cap% — aapKLK.bc  —  The  disunion  in  human  nature  not  necessary — but 
voluntary  and  blameworthy, 385,  386 

oapKiKdc,  equivalent  to  rpvxt-Kbc,  in  opposition  to  the  Oelov  nvevfia,  denotes 
human  nature  generally  in  its  state  of  estrangement  from  the  divine  life,.. ..  386,  387 
6.  Origin  of  sin  and  death. 

The  consciousness  of  sin  and  of  the  need  of  redemption  presupposed  as  a 
universal  fact ;  hence  the  origin  of  sin  seldom  adverted  to,  but  the  idea  of 
an  original  state  of  perfection,  and  the  voluntary  fall  of  the  first  man,  lies  at 
the  basis  of  Paul's  doctrine, 387,  383 


CONTENTS.  XXI 

FAOM 

The  first  man  not  the  representative  of  human  nature  generally— The 
origin  of  sinful  desire  from  apparent  guiltlessness  (Rom.  vii.  9)  not  referable 
to  Adam— The  natural  man  preceding  the  spiritual  (1  Cor.  xv.  46)  implies 
not  sinfulness  but  subjection  to  death, 388,  389 

According  to  Rom.  v.  12,  the  sinful  direction  of  the  will  was  produced  by 
Adam's  voluntary  act,  from  original  sinlessuess,  and  continues  itself  in  the 
whole  development  of  the  race, 390 

Through  sin  death  comes  upon  all  men,  not  by  an  essential  change  in  the 
physical  organization  of  man,  but  in  man's  view  of  death — Death  appears 
not  as  a  step  in  the  development  of  life,  but  as  a  consequence  of  the  with- 

drawment  of  the  divine  life  through  sin, 391,  392 

c.  Supremacy  of  the  sinful  principle  in  human  nature  in  connexion  with  an 
undeniable  consciousness  of  God. 

The  original  aflinity  to  God  not  destroyed  but  suppressed — The  use  of  the 
works  of  creation  in  awakening  the  religious  sentiment — Religious  suscep- 
tibility injured  by  sin— the  origin  of  idolatry— Deterioration  of  man's  moral 
nature,  yet  the  power  of  conscience  not  destroyed 392,  393 

The  trichotomy  of  human  nature  (1  Thess.  v.  23)  nvevfia,  ipvxv,  au/xa— 
The  ipvxv  not  the  principle  of  animal  life,  but  the  lower  and  worldly  self- 
consciousness, 394,  395 


The  "  inner  man, 


395 


d.  The  state  of  disunion. 

Two  contending  principles  in  human  nature,  spirit  and  flesh — States  of 
bondage,  either  unconscious,  living  without  law,  or  conscious,  living  under 
the  law— Rom.  vii.  a  delineation  of  both  these  states,  taken  from  Paul's 

own  experience,  but  applicable  to  all  mankind, 395-398 

8.  Preparatives  for  Redemption — Judaism  and  Heathenism. 

a.  Judaism— Preparative  in  two  ways— By  awakening  an  anxiety  for  redemp- 
tion, and  by  pointing  to  the  means  by  which  it  would  be  effected — Only 
one  universal  purpose  of  God,  who  reveals  his  redeeming  grace  in  ita 
promise  and  its  fulfilment— Faith,  one  universal  condition— The  funda- 
mental relation  between  God  and  man  not  altered  by  the  law,  which  served 
partly  to  repress  the  outbreakings  of  sin,  partly  to  excite  the  consciousness 

of  sin, 398-401 

b.  Heathenism. 

Judaism  a  progressive  revelation,  but  heathenism  only  a  development  of 
nature— Though  idolatry  suppressed  the  original  revelation  of  God  in  the 
works  of  Nature,  still  the  law  of  conscience  remained  (of  which  the  Mosaic 
law  was  a  representative),  and  with  that  a  sense  of  the  need  of  redemption 
Partial  enlightenment  and  fulfilment  of  the  law  among  the  heathen 401-403 

c.  Hindrances  and  conditions  of  salvation  in  both  Jews  and  Heathens. 

The  gross  security  of  heathenism— The  legal  righteousness  of  Judaism— 
The  sign-seeking  of  the  Jews,  and  the  wisdom-seeking  of  the  Gentiles- 
Redemption  the  object  of  the  whole  history  of  mankind— Attestations  to 
the  universal  need  of  redemption  in  Christ's  discourses  as  recorded  in  the 

first  three  Gospels, 401-408 

4.  The  Work  of  Redemption. 

A.  Its  accomplishment  by  Christ,  both  actively  and  passively, •  •  408-412 

a.  The  life  of  Christ  exhibits  the  destruction  of  sin,  and  the  realization  of  the 

law  in  human  nature 408-410 


XXU  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

b.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  (constantly  to  be  viewed  in  connexion  with  his  own 

'     life), 410-41 

B.  The  results  of  the  work  of  Christ. 

a.  Reconciliation  with  God. 

The  life  and  sufferings  of  Christ  a  revelation  of  the  eternal  love  of  God — 
Men,  once  the  enemies  of  God,  become  through  Christ  objects  of  divine 
love, 412 

Possibility  of  reconciliation  as  merely  subjective — A  change  in  the  disposi- 
sition  of  man  towards  God  effected  by  the  work  of  Christ — But  even  on 
this  supposition  the  amendment  in  man  is  the  effect,  not  the  cause  of  God's 
'      love ;  2  Cor.  v.  20, 412^114 

But  this  view  inadequate  and  untenable — The  sense  of  the  wrath  of  God 
has  an  objective  basis — A.  revelation  of  the  divine  holiness, 414 

The  distinction  between  ndpeoic  and  u<peoic,. ...    415,  416 

The  divine  holiness  revealed  in  Christ  in  a  twofold  manner, 416 

b.  dnoXvTpuaic  and  aurrjpia,  freedom  from  guilt  and  punishment;  in  a  wider 
sense  as  effected  objectively  by  Christ,  and  realized  in  individuals  in  a  more 
limited  sense, 417 

c.  diKaiuoic. 

The  Pauline  dmaiuoic,  like  the  Jewish,  inseparable  from  a  participation  in 
all  the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  of  God — but  only  to  be  obtained  through 
fellowship  with  Christ,  the  only  perfect  dinatoc  : 

Hence  diicaiuoic  the  induction  of  a  believer  in  Christ  into  the  relation  of 
a  dUaiog  ;  diKcuocvvt]  the  appropriation  of  Christ's  righteousness  as  the  ob- 
jective ground  of  faith,  as  well  as  the  subjective  principle  of  life ;  hence  its 
necessarily  supposed  departure  from  a  life  of  sin,  and  entrance  into  the  holy 

life  of  Christ, 417,  418 

5.  The  Appropriation  of  Salvation  by  Faith. 

a.  The  nature  of  Faith. 

The  reception  of  divine  revelation  by  an  internal  determination  of  the 
will — In  this  respect,  and  not  in  reference  to  the  object,  Abraham  was  a 
pattern  of  the  righteousness  that  is  by  faith  ;  Rom.  iv.  19, 419,  420 

Christian  faith  modified  by  its  object — A  twofold  reference  to  Christ  as 
crucified  and  risen, 420,  421 

b.  nioTic  the  peculiarity  of  the  Christian  stand-point,  in  distinction  from  the 
Jewish  legal. 

The  law  requires  everything  which  faith  already  contains;  Rom.  x.  5, . .  421,  422 

The  law  is  in  itself  a  deadly  letter— The  gospel  a  life-giving  spirit— In  the 
believer,  the  law  is  not  an  object  merely  of  knowledge,  but  of  efficient  love,  422,  423 

The  law  is  so  far  abrogated  for  believers,  that  their  diKaioavvrj  and  fw# 
are  independent  of  it  through  faith,  from  which  epya  dyadd  spontaneously 
proceed, 423 

Paul's  appeals  to  the  vo/xoc  are  only  to  the  outward  Mosaic  law  as  an  ex- 
pression of  the  eternal  law  of  God, 424 

Hence  the  term  vofioc  denotes  in  a  more  general  sense  what  is  common 
to  both  Judaism  and  Christianity ;  in  the  one  to  an  outward,  in  the  other  to 
an  inward  law, 424,  425 

Under  the  Jewish  Theocracy  the  service  was  external,  ti>  naXaioTTjTi 
ypd/n/xaro^ — Under  the  Gospel  internal  ev  KaivoTrjTi  nvevfiurog — Its  SovXeia 
identical  with  viodeoia;  the  worship  of  the  former,  oapniKT),  of  the  latter, 
izvevfiarcKT] ;  in  the  one  it  was  kotu  capua,  in  the  other  kv  nvpiu, 425—427 


CONTENTS.  XXlii 

6.  The  New  Life  proceeding  from  Faith. 

a.  The  transformation  of  the  sinful  nature  by  the  Divine ;  accomplished  gra- 
dually ;  the  adp§  opposed  not  merely  by  the  higher  nature  of  man,  but  by 

the  Spirit  of  Christ  (Trvev/xa  uyiov), 427  428 

All  the  mental  and  bodily  powers  become  organs  of  grace — The  Spirit  of 
Christ  pervades  all  the  peculiar  talents  of  individuals ;  hence  charisms, ....  429,  430 

Objective  justification  as  an  unchangeable  ground  of  confidence,  distin- 
guished from  subjective  sanctification,  which  is  often  an  uncertain  ground,  430 

b.  The  principles  of  the  new  life — Faith,  Love,  Hope. 

nianc  sometimes  denotes  the  whole  extent  of  Christian  ability — Swutoc 
ttj  morel,  relates  particularly  to  the  judgment  formed  by  the  Christian  of 
outward  things — Hence  proceeds  Christian  freedom,  which  is  shown  even 
in  submitting  to  outward  restraints — Nothing  indifferent, 430-433 

Love  the  natural  effect  of  faith— By  the  revelation  of  the  love  of  God  in 
redemption,  love  to  him  is  continually  kindled 434 

Faith  and  love  partly  relate  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  present,  but  they 
have  also  a  marked  relation  to  the  future,  for  the  new  life  is  in  a  state  of 
constant  progression,  it  longs  after  the  perfect  revelation  of  the  children 
of  God, 435-437 

Hence  hope  necessarily  belongs  to  faith  and  love — Perseverance  in  the 
work  of  faith  is  the  praclical  side  of  hope 437 

The  knowledge  of  divine  things  proceeds  from  faith — Proceeds  from  the 
spiritual  life — Depends  on  the  increase  of  love — Being  necessarily  defective 
in  the  present  state,  is  connected  with  the  hope  of  perfect  intuition, 438,  439 

Love  the  greatest  of  the  three,  because  it  alone  abides  for  ever;  1  Cor. 

xiii.  13, 439,  440 

C  Special  Christian  virtues  proceeding  from  Faith,  Love,  and  Hope. 

a.  raweivofypoowi)  distinguishes  Lhe  Christian  from  the  Hebrew  view  of 
the  world;  only  partial  even  on  the  Jewish  stand-point;  though  its  direct 
relation  is  to  God  alone,  yet  its  effects  are,  opposition  to  all  self-exaltation, 
and  moderation  towards  others, 441-444 

[3.  outypoovvq,  sober-mindedness  in  conflict  with  the  world,  2  Tim.  i.  7  ; 
and  in  self-estimation,  Eom.  xii.  3, 444 

y.  ao(j>ca — The  understanding  under  the  influence  of  faith— Wisdom  and 
prudence, 44^  445 

Analogy  to  the  cardinal  virtues  of  heathen  philosophers— Love  occupies 
the  place  of  diKaioovvrj, 445(  446 

7.  The  Church  and  the  Sacraments. 
A.  The  Church. 

The  immediate  relation  of  each  individual  to  Christ  of  primary  import- 
ance— Hence  the'  idea  of  a  community  founded  on  the  unity  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  believers,  which  counterbalances  all  other  differences,  Gal.  iii.  26,..  446,  447 

The  iKKlrjaia  is  the  body  of  Christ — Faith  in  Christ  its  foundation — Marks 
of  its  unity.  Eph.  iv.  4, 448 

The  Old  Testament  terms  applied  to  Christians;  uyioi  denotes  their  objec- 
tive consecration  joined  with  subjective  sanctification — kItjtol  the  outward 
and  inward  call  considered  as  one — The  idea  and  the  appearance  in  general 
not  separated  by  Paul, 448,  449 

But  in  particular  instances,  the  spurious  members  are  distinguished  from 
the  genuine — Where  the  difference  is  perceptible,  the  former  are  to  be  ex- 
cluded, in  other  cases  the  separation  must  be  left  to  God, 4!>0 


XHV  CONTENTS. 

FAGIS 

The  care  of  the  general  good  committed  to  all  according  to  their  respective 
'abilities  and  charisms 450 

B,  The  Sacraments. 

a.  Baptism — "Putting  on  Christ" — Its  twofold  reference  to  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ ;  includes  a  reference  to  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit — The  outward  and  the  inward  are  supposed  to  be  combined, 4.5 1-453 

6.  The  Supper. 

A  feast  of  commemoration,  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  the  celebration  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings and  a  pledge  of  constant  communion  with  him;  iarlv  =  it  represents; 
•involves  a  reference  to  the  mutual  communion  of  believers 453-455 

9.  The  Kingdom  of  God, 455 

A.  Its  idea  and  extent 
a.  Its  idea. 

Corresponds  to  the  idea  of  the  Church,  as  a  general  idea  does  to  a  par- 
ticular. Preparation  by  means  of  the  Jewish  Theocracy — And  completed  by 
Christianity;  the  former  sensible  and  national,  the  latter  spiritual  and 
universal, 455,  456 

By  faith  in  Christ,  the  Messianic  kingdom,  the  aldv  fielluv  as  opposed  to 
the  aldv  ovrog  or  novepbc,  becomes  already  present — Hence  the  kingdom  of 
God  coincides  with  the  idea  of  the  invisible  church  on  earth, 456,  457 

But  the  idea  is  still  imperfectly  realized. 457 

A  threefold  application  of  the  term.  1.  The  present  internal  kingdom 
of  God,   1   Cor.  iv.  20 ;    Rom.  xiv.  It.      2.  The  future  completion  of  it, 

1  Cor.  vi.  10.      3.  The  present  as  one  with  the   future,    1  Thess.  ft,  12 ; 

2  Thess.  i.  5, 458 

5.  The  heavenly  community  co-extensive  with  the  invisible  church, 458,  459 

The  kingdom  of  God  embraces  a  higher  spiritual  world,  in  which  the 
archetype  of  the  church  is  realized — Mankind  are  united  to  this  higher 
world  by  the  knowledge  of  God,  Eph.  iii.  15,  CoL  i.  20,  compared  with 
Eph.  ii.  14, 459 

B.  Doctrine  of  the  Logos, 460 

The  doctrine  not  traceable  to  external  influences,  but  directly  to  the  self- 
revelation  of  the  person  of  Christ, 460,  461 

The  progressive  organic  development  of  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  a  Mes- 
siah to  the  idea  of  Son  of  God ;  but  all  derived  from  the  historical  Christ, . .  461 
False  derivation  from  Greek  philosophy — Philo's  Logos 462 

Paul  and  John  alike  derive  their  conceptions  from  the  person  of  Christ — 
Close  connexion  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  with  Christian  faith  and  morals,  463,  464 

Refutation  of  the  assertion  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  found  only 
in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  the  Philippians, 464-469 

C.  The  Kingdom  of  Evil  opposed  to  the  Kingdom  of  God, 469 

The  prevalence  of  sin  among  mankind  connected  with  the  prevalence  of 
evil  in  the  higher  world — All  ungodliness  the  power  of  a  spirit  whose  king- 
dom is  aldv  ovtoq — False  gods  not  evil  spirits, 469,  470 

Christ  the  destroyer  of  this  kingdom — His  death  apparently  a  defeat,  but 
in  reality  a  victory — Charisms  the  tokens  of  his  triumph 471 

The  conflict  with  the  kingdom  of  evil  carried  on  by  Christians, 472 


CONTENTS.  XXV 

PAGES 

D.  The  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  till  its  final  completion, 472 

The  accomplishment  of  the  scheme  of  redemption  a  work  of  free  grace,. . .  473 

a.  As  opposed  to  pre-eminence  of  natural  descent, 473 

b.  As  opposed  to  legal  merits, 474 

Apparent  denial  of  free  self-determination  in  Rom.  ix.,  yet  not  the 
apostle's  intention  to  give  a  complete  theory — But  a*n  antithetical  reference 
to  the  arrogance-of  the  Jews 474-476 

Confidence  in  their  own  righteousness  the  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  —  The  Gentiles  warned  against  presumptuous  reliances  on  divine 
grace 477 

To  excite  Christian  confidence,  the  apostle  refers  to  the  unalterable  counsel 
of  divine  love— Allusions  to  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  o  f  God, ....  478,  479 

10.  The  doctrines  of  the  Resurrection  and  of  the  State  of  the  Soul  after  Death. 

c.  The  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection. 

The  spiritual  awakening  by  faith  a  preparation  for  the  future — The  Palin- 
genesia  of  nature,  Rom.  viii.  19, 479-480 

b.  State  of  the  Soul  after  Death  till  the  Resurrection. 

Whether  Paul  considered  the  state  of  the  soul  after  death  till  the  resurrec- 
tion to  be  one  of  suspended  consciousness  like  sleep? — Apparent  ground  for 
it  in  1  Thess 481 

But  his  expectation  of  continued  communion  with  Christ,  as  signified  in 
Cor.  iv.  16,  opposed  to  this  supposition;  also  PhiL  i.  21,  23;    2  Tim.  iv.  18,  481-483 

Possibility  of  an  alteration  in  his  views  by  progressive  illumination — But 
a  comparisou  of  1  Cor.  xv.  with  2  Cor.  v.  1,  is  against  this, 483,  484 

Therefore  he  held  the  unbroken  consciousness  of  the  soul  after  death,  even 
at  an  earlier  period  of  his  ministry,  though  not  then  brought  forward, 484 

c.  The  Consummation. 

The  end  of  the  Mediatorial  kingdom  and  the  consummation  of  all  things — 
Pantheistic  misunderstanding  of  1  Cor.  xv.  28 — "Whether  Paul  teaches  that 
there  is  to  be  a  final  restoration  of  all, 485-487 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF  THE   EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS. 

The  author  of  this  Epistle  compared  with  Paul, 487,488 

Points  of  agreement  in  their  views, 489 

Points  of  difference — Paul  contemplates  the  Jewish  economy  as  abrogated — In 

this  Epistle  it  is  spoken  of  as  still  existing,  though  only  typical, 489-491 

Treating  of  Salvation  in  its  relation  solely  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  though 

un-Pauline,  not  contrary  to  Paul's  sentiments, 492 

The  work  of  Christ — The  exaltation  of  Christ  to  heaven  more  frequently  adverted 

to  than  his  resurrection— Allusions  to  the  High  Priesthood, 492-494 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  and  their  relation  to  the  sins  of  mankind — Christ  hum- 
bled and  Christ  glorified, 494,  495 


XXXI  CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

Objective  satisfaction  made  by  Christ  to  the  holiness  of  God 495 

Faith,  that  by  which  the  objective  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  appropriated  to  the 
subjective  purification  of  the  believer — Faith,  hope,  and  love — As  with  Paul  a 
more  general  conception  of  faith  underlies  the  special  application  of  the  idea,    495,  496 
Relation  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  the  Alexandrian-Jewish  theology  and 

to  Philo 496-498 


CHAPTER    III 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   JAMES. 

His  type  of  doctrine  and  his  religious  character  as  compared  with  those  of  Paul,  498, 499 

1.  Relation  of  faith  and  works  in  connexion  with  his  general  view  of  Christi- 
anity. 

Comparison  of  a  pretended  faith  with  a  pretended  love — Works  not  the  soul 
of  faith,  but  the  marks  of  its  vitality, 499,  500 

A  twofold  sense  of  the  term  Faith  (un-Pauline  but  not  anti-PauMne) — The 
faith  of  evil  spirits  forced  and  passive — that  of  Abraham  spontaneous,  and  in 
harmony  with  the  other  principles  of  the  mind  (Paul  contemplates  the  ob- 
jective and  causal,  James  the  subjective  and  practical), 500-502 

The  vojioq  used  to  signify  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 502 

Unity  of  the  law — Love  its  fulfilment — Language  the  organ  of  the  whole 
disposition — The  Christian  life  a  work, 503 

Christianity  as  the  vofiog  Teleiog  not  merely  a  new  law,  but  a  new  internal 
creation, 504 

The  difference  from  Paul  only  in  the  mode  of  development, 504,  505 

2.  His  views  of  the  law  compared  with  the  Pauline. 

His  object  was  to  lead  the  Jews  from  Judaism  to  the  Gospel — hence  he 
represents  Christ  as  the  fulfiller  of  the  law,  Matt.  v.  17  ;  and  allows  its  ob- 
servance by  the  believing  Jews,  Acts  xv.  21 ;  xxi.  21, '    505 

Paul  acted  with  greater  latitude  among  the  Gentiles — Became  a  Gentile. 
Gal.  ii.  14,  which  was  not  required  of  James,  as  his  ministry  was  confined 
to  Jews, 506 

3.  The  duty  of  veracity. 

James  repeats  the  injunctions  of  Christ  verbally  (Matt.  v.  12) — Paul  enforces 
the  duty  from  the  mutual  relation  of  Christians,  Eph.  v.  12,  and  on  certain 
occasions  used  forms  of  aeseveration  equivalent  to  an  oath, 506 

4.  The  free  self-determination  of  man  in  reference  to  sin — The  sentiments  of 
James  on  this  point  form  an  important  supplement  to  Paul's  doctrinal  state- 
ments,...     ,,. 507,508 


CONTENTS.  XXVll 

CHAPTER    IV. 

THE     DOCTRINE     OF     JOHN. 

PAGES 

John  as  compared  with  Paul  and  James — In  John's  mind  the  intuitive  element 
predominates  over,  the  dialectic — His  Christian  course  emphatically  a  life  in 
communion  with  Christ, 508 

1.  The  central-point  of  his  doctrine — Divine  life  in  Communion  with  Christ — 

Death  in  estrangement  from  him, 509 

The  theoretical  and  the  practical  are  intimately  blended  in  his  view — His 
leading  ideas  are  light,  life,  and  truth,  in  communion  with  God  through  the 

Logos — Death,  darkness,  falsehood  in  separation  from  him, 509,  510 

Satan  the  representative  of  falsehood — "  A  liar  and  the  father  of  it " — His 
personality  (note) — Truth  and  goodness — sin  and  falsehood  are  one — The 
children  of  God,  and  the  children  of  the  world, -.   510,  511 

2.  Original  estrangement  of  man  from  God — Opposition  of  the  oapumbv  and 
nvevjuariKov — The  consciousness  of  sin  a  condition  of  the  new  life, 511 

3.  Susceptibility  of  Redemption. 

Need  of  an  inward  sense  corresponding  to  the  outward  revelation — Hence 
faith  presupposes  a  preparatory  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit — This  divine  im- 
pulse not  compulsory;  but  unsusceptibility  voluntary  and  criminal, 512,  513 

Twofold  sense  of  the  phrases,  rival  e«  Qeov  and  eivai  Ik  rrjs  dlrjdlac, 513 

4.  The  Person  and  Work  of  Christ. 

The  life  of  Christ  the  manifestation  of  God  in  human  form — Grace  and  truth 
in  Christ  correspond  to  love  and  holiness  in  God, 514,  515 

The  whole  life  of  Christ  a  revelation  of  God — Hence  his  miracles  and 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit  only  mark  a  new  epoch  in  his  ministry 515,  516 

Christ's  miracles  intended  to  lead  men  to  higher  views  of  hi3  do%a  ; 
meanings  of  the  term  Faith  in  John's  writings, 516 

Import  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ — The  idea  of  reconciliation  at  the  basis 
— The  communication  of  divine  life  connected  with  his  sacrifice — and  depend- 
ing on  his  exaltation  to  glory — The  spiritual  maturity  of  his  disciples  de- 
pending negatively  on  this,  but  positively  on  his  divine  influence — The 
nvevfia  ayiov  the  result  of  his  glorification, 517,  518 

6.  Faith  as  the  Principle  of  a  New  Life. 

Faith  the  on6  work  acceptable  to  God,  John  vi.  29 — Complete  surrender 

to  Christ — One  commandment  of  the  Lord,  brotherly  love, 519 

Faith  the  victory  over  the  world — A.  superstitious    faith    in  the  Messiah 

easily  changed  to  absolute  unbelief, 520 

The  children  of  God,  and  the  children  of  the  devil, 521 

Progressive  purification  of  believers, 522 

Harmony  of  John's  doctrine  with  itself  and  with  Paul's, 522,  523 

Christian  hope 523,  524 

John  the  representative  of  mysticism, 524 

6.  Resurrection  and  Judgment. 

Peculiarity  of  John's  conceptions — The  internal  and  present  predominate 
— mysticism, 524 


XXviil  CONTENTS. 

PAsn 

'  Judgment  something  taking  place  in  the  present  life — the  publication  of 
the  Gospel  necessarily  involves  a  separation  of  the  susceptible  from  the 
unsusceptible  —  Judgment  opposed  to  aurTjpia  —  The  unbeliever  condemns 

himself — The  believer  is  not  condemned, 525,  526 

But  this  judgment,  and  the  spiritual  awakening,  are  preparatory  to  the 
final  judgment  and  resurrection, 526 

7.  The  Second  Coming  of  Christ 

This  is  represented   by  John  as  internal  —  First    by  the   coming   of  the 
Spirit,  xvi.  13,  then  of  Christ's  own  spiritual  coming,  16 — Yet  a  personal 
•  visible  napovaia  is  not  excluded 526,  527 

8.  The  Idea  of  the  Church. 

Not  literally  expressed — Yet  metaphorically  by  "  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
herd," also  the  distinction  of  internal  and  external  communion,  1  Ep.  ii.  19,  528 

9.  The  Sacraments. 

The  institution  of  Christian  baptism  not  mentioned — But  its  spiritual  ele- 
ment noticed  in  hi.  3 — In  the  same  manner  the  Supper,  vi., 528,  529 

The  essence  of  Christianity  according  to  Paul  and  John — Worshipping 
God  as  the  Father  through  the  Son,  in  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 
This  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 530 

Closing  remarks, 530,  531 


HISTORY 

OF 

THE   PLANTING   AND   TRAINING 

OF 

THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH 

BY   THE  APOSTLES. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS  ON"  THE  SOURCES  OP  THIS  HISTORY. 

The  manner  in  which  criticism  has  been  recently  applied  to  this  branch 
of  history  induces  us  to  premise  a  few  words  on  its  sources,  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  following  investigations.  Aside  from  the  few  notices  from 
other  quarters,  we  must,  in  order  to  examine  the  true  nature  of  the  facts 
involved  in  this  history,  carefully  compare  two  sources  with  one  another, 
namely,  the  Epistles  of  the  Apostles  and  their  companions,  —  which,  their 
genuineness  being  ascertained,  are  the  surest  sources,  —  and  the  narrative 
known  by  the  name  of  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  As  we  are  prepared 
to  prove  the  credibility  of  the  latter  hereafter  in  detail,  we  wish  here 
only  to  see  whether,  in  passing,  some  marks  of  the  confidence  to  be 
placed  in  this  source  do  not  appear. 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  book  itself,  from  chap.  xvi.  10,  we  meet  with 
a  striking  peculiarity, — the  author  in  several  passages  speaks  in  the  first 
person  plural,  as  one  of  the  companions  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  his  fellow- 
traveller,  and  therefore  an  eye-witness  of  part  of  the  events  contained  in 
the  history.  This  is  a  very  important  indication  of  the  rank  which  we 
must  allow  to  this  document  as  a  source  of  historical  information.  It 
may  indeed  be  objected,  as  has  actually  been  done  by  Dr.  Von  Baur, 
(in  his  work,  Paulas,  der  Apostel  Jesu  Christi:  Stuttgart,  1845,  p.  12,) 


2  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

that  the  author  of  the  Acts  belonged  to  a  later  period,  but  adopted  this 
phraseology  because  he  wished  to  be  regarded  as  the  companion  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,  and  to  act  the  part  of  Luke.  But  this  supposition  no  un- 
prejudiced person  can  adopt.  For  then  how  can  it  be  explained  that  the 
author  does  not  from  the  beginning  give  some  sign  of  the  part  he  was 
acting,  and  in  which  it  was  so  important  for  him  to  be  acknowledged ; 
that  he  does  not  also,  where  he  first  begins  to  adopt  this  style,  drop  some 
hint  as  to  who  he  is,  and  how  he  happened  to  be  in  Paul's  company  ? 
This  really  looks  in  itself,  and  especially  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
apocryphal  writings  of  that  age,  as  unlike  one  who  wished  to  write  under 
the  name  of  another,  as  can  be  imagined.  The  manner  in  which  the 
author  of  the  Acts  at  once,  without  anything  leading  to  it,  begins  to 
express  himself  in  this  associated  form  of  address,  bears  undeniable  marks 
of  the  absence  of  design. 

And  for  whom  did  the  author  compose  this  work  ?  As  by  the  intro- 
ductory words  it  is  connected  with  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  professes  to 
be  the  second  part  of  that  work  on  the  primitive  history  of  Christianity, 
it  is  evident  that  it  was  primarily  written  for  the  same  object  which  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  states  in  his  introduction — to  furnish  an  individual, 
Theophilus,  with  exact  and  certain  knowledge  of  that  history ;  and  this 
certainly  does  not  agree  with  his  wishing  to  act  the  part  of  any  other 
person  than  he  really  was.  Here  again  it  may  be  objected — these  writ- 
ings were  not  really  composed  for  such  a  Theophilus,  but  he  who  forged 
the  work  under  the  name  of  a  companion  of  the  Apostle  Paul  chose  this 
garb  for  his  fabrication.  But  the  introductory  woi'ds  of  Luke's  Gospel 
are  by  no  means  suited  to  give  us  the  impression  of  such  a  design,  but 
correspond  in  a  simple,  natural  manner  to  the  object  which  a  Christian 
writer  might  have  who  lived  under  the  relations  of  that  fresh  age  of 
Christianity.  And  further,  why  should  he  in  those  words  (Luke  i.  2) 
have  stated  that  the  accounts  of  eye-witnesses  formed  the  main  sources 
of  his  narrative,  when  in  consistency  with  the  part  he  wished  to  act 
he  ought  to  have  described  himself  as  an  eye-witness  ?  Or  must  we 
refer  those  introductory  words  only  to  the  Gospel,  and  not  at  the  same 
time  to  the  Acts  ?  But  if  persons  are  resolved  to  find  a  fabrication  un- 
dertaken for  a  special  purpose,  must  they  not  also,  as  most  natural, 
assume  that  the  author  from  the  first  had  the  whole  plan  of  his  frauspia 
in  his  mind,  and  hence  in  the  introductory  words  to  the  first  part  of  his 
work  had  made  preparation  for  what  he  intended  to  exhibit  in  the 
6econd  part? 

If,  now,  this  personal  form  of  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  is  not  a  fabri 


SOURCES — CREDIBILITY    OF   THE   ACTS.  3 

cation,  having  a  special  end  in  view,  it  can  be  explained  only  in  one  of 
two  ways.  Either  the  same  person  speaks  here  from  whom  the  whole 
history  proceeded,  or  it  is  the  account  of  another  individual,  which  the 
author,  using  various  sources  for  his  work,  incorporated  in  its  original  form 
with  his  own  composition.  If  we  suppose  the  first,  it  is  evident  that 
the  work  proceeded  from  one  who  wTas  an  eye-witness  of  part  of  the 
events  he  describes,  and  who  as  a  missionary  companion  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  stood  in  close  connection  with  him.  And  this  will  predispose  us  to 
judge  favorably  of  the  sources  which  the  author  might  make  use  of,  for 
those  transactions  in  which  he  was  not  an  eye-witness,  as  well  as  of  the 
general  fidelity  of  his  narrative.  We  shall  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  per- 
suaded that  such  a  person,  instead  of  wishing  to  give  pure  history,  only 
aimed  at  compiling  from  the  materials  before  him  a  fiction,  even  though 
for  a  good  object.  But  if  we  adopt  the  second  alternative,  it  follows, 
that  at  least  an  important  portion  of  the  narrative  is  founded  on  the 
report  of  a  trustworthy  eye-witness.  From  a  single  example  of  the  use 
of  such  a  report,  it  is  apparent  that  the  author  wished  to  employ,  and 
did  employ,  good  sources  of  information.  And  by  this  single  example, 
of  .leaving  unaltered  the  personal  form  of  narrative,  when  another 
would  have  been  more  suitable,  he  shows  that  he  regarded  truth  more 
than  historic  art — the  fidelity  of  the  narrative  more  than  unity  of  histori- 
cal composition.  It  is  plain  how  deficient  he  was  in  historic  art,  and 
that  therefore  we  must  expect  to  find  rather  the  raw  material  from  the 
sources  within  his  reach,  than  an  historical  composition  cast  after  one 
idea,  and  in  one  mould.  It  is  plain  how  little  we  should  expect  that 
such  a  person  would,  like  the  classical  historians,  have  constructed  with 
creative  art  the  speeches  he  reports,  according  to  the  point  of  view  and 
character  of  each  speaker,  and  how  little  such  art  and  ability  can  be 
attributed  to  him. 

Both  suppositions  have  their  difficulties,  which  in  either  case  can  find 
their  solution  only  in  the  peculiarity  of  the  historian,  and  in  the  whole 
method  of  his  work.  In  the  one  case,  the  carelessness  and  awkwardness 
which  allowed  him  to  admit  these  foreign  accounts  without  altering  the 
unsuitable  form  of  the  narrative,  is  wholly  unaccountable.  But  if  we  adopt 
the  other  supposition,  it  still  remains  very  strange  and  awkward,  that  he 
should  appear  speaking  in  this  form  all  at  once  without  notice ;  without 
saying  anything  about  the  manner  in  which  he  came  to  be  one  of  Paul's 
companions ;  how  by  turns  he  is  associated  with  him  and  separated  from 
him.  But  in  both  cases  we  shall  be  led  to  similar  conclusions  in  refer- 
ence to  the  origination  and  character  of  this  historical  collection. 


4  INTRODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

^Whether  the  introductory  words  of  Luke's  Gospel  do  or  do  not  refer  to 
both  parts  of  the  work,  at  all  events  we  can  apply  what  is  there  said 
(Luke  i.  2)  to  the  Acts,  that  he  made  use  of  the  reports  of  the  original  eye- 
witnesses of  the  Christian  history,  and  of  the  first  publishers  of  the  Gos- 
pel; which  could  be  pertinently  said  by  Luke,  to  whom  ecclesiastical 
tradition  attributes  both  works,  to  the  physician  whom  Paul,  in  his 
Epistle  written  from  Rome,  names  as  his  fellow-laborer.  It  is  true,  that 
to  'refer  these  words  in  the  Gospel  to  the  Acts  would  not  favor  the  sup- 
position, that  the  account  in  which  he  uses  the  first  person  proceeded 
from  himself;  for  by  that  supposition  he  himself  would  belong  to  the  eye- 
witnesses. Yet  it  is  questionable  whether  these  words  really  belong  to 
both  parts,  and  whether  the  author,  when  writing  the  Gospel,  had 
already  in  mind  that  continuation  of  it. 


BOOK  1.    • 


THE   CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  IN  PALESTINE,  PREVIOUS  TO  ITS 
SPREAD  AMONG  HEATHEN  NATIONS. 


CHAPTER    I. 


THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    ON    ITS    FIRST    APPEARANCE    AS   A   DISTINCT 
RELIGIOUS    COMMUNITY. 

The  Christian  Church,  as  a  community,  proceeding  from  the  new  prin 
ciple  that  was  to  transform  the  world,  and  destined  to  introduce  this 
new  principle  into  humanity,  presupposes,  as  the  basis  of  its  existence, 
the  Person  who  was  himself  in  his  whole  being  and  manifestation  that 
world-transforming  principle,  without  whom  the  existence  of  the  church 
itself  would  be  a  monstrous  lie.  But  in  order  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  existence  of  the  church,  there  was  also  a  necessity  for  that 
unparalleled  event  affecting  all  succeeding  ages,  by  which  this  objective 
principle  passed  into  the  consciousness  of  men,  henceforth  to  form  the 
central  point  of  that  new  internal  life-communion  on  which  the  very 
essence  of  the  church  depends.  This  event  was  the  miracle  of  the  first 
Pentecost,  which,  in  its  essential  nature,  is  repeated  wherever  a  creation 
of  the  Christian  life,  either  in  individuals  or  in  communities,  takes  place. 
If  all  the  great  epochs  in  the  development  of  the  church  point  us  to  a 
beginning  which  marks  the  boundary  between  the  old  and  the  new, 
where  first  that  which  constitutes  the  peculiarity  of  the  new  epoch  is 
manifested,  certainly  the  greatest  epoch,  from  which  all  the  others 
proceeded,  cannot  be  thought  to  want  such  a  beginning  ;  and  historical 
traditions  here  harmonize  with  what  the  idea  of  the  thing  itself  would 
lead  us  to  anticipate.  And  however  much  the  explanation  of  particular 
points  in  that  tradition  may  be  disputed,  the  historical  reality  of  the  fact 
on  the  whole  remains  unshaken  and  raised  above  all  attempts  at  mythical 
explanation,  and  its  truth  is  shown  by  itself,  as  well  as  by  the  results 
which  were  consequent  on  it. 

The  historical  development  of  the  Christian  church  as  a  body,  is 
similar  to  that  of  the  Christian  life  in  each  of  its  members.  In  the  latter 
case,  the  transition  from  an  unchristian  to  a  Christian  state  is  not  an  event 
altogether  sudden,  and  without  any  preparatory  steps.     Many  separate 


8  THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    IN    PALESTINE. 

rays  of  divine  light,  at  different  times,  enter  the  soul ;  various  influences 
of  awakening  preparative  grace  are  felt,  before  the  birth  of  that  new- 
divine  life  by  which  the  whole  character  of  man  is  destined  to  be  taken 
possession  of,  pervaded,  and  transformed.  The  appearance  of  a  new 
personality  sanctified  by  the  divine  principle  of  life,  necessarily  forms  a 
great  era  in  life,  but  the  commencement  of  this  era  is  not  marked  with 
perfect  precision  and  distinctness ;  the  new  creation  manifests  itself  more 
or  less  gradually  by  its  effects.  "The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth, 
and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  knowest  not  whence  it  cometh, 
nor  whither  it  goeth."  The  same  may  be  affirmed  of  the  church  collec- 
tively, with  this  difference,  however,  that  here  the  point  of  commence- 
ment is  more  visibly  and  decidedly  marked. 

It  is  true,  that  Christ,  during  his  ministry  on  earth,  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  outward  structure  of  the  church  ;  he  then  formed  that  community, 
that  spiritual  Theocracy,  whose  members  were  held  together  by  faith  in, 
and  confession  of,  Him  as  their  theocratic  King.  The  community  of 
disciples  who  acknowledged  Him  as  their  Lord  and  master — their 
theocratic  king — formed  the  scaffolding  for  the  future  structure  of  the 
church.  But  it  was  as  yet  the  letter  without  the  spirit,  the  outward 
form  without  the  inward  power.  The  vital  principle  of  this  community, 
which  once  in  existence,  should  become  the  imperishable  seed  for  the 
propagation  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  had  not  yet  germinated.  As 
Christ  himself  said  :  "  If  the  seed  fall  not  into  the  earth  and  die  it  remaineth 
alone,  but  if  it  die  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit ;"  so  that  fountain  of  divine 
life  which  should  afterward  flow  forth  over  the  whole  human  race,  was, 
during  his  existence  on  earth,  shut  up  in  him  alone.  From  the  inde- 
pendent possession  and  individual  form  of  this  divine  life  there  had  not 
yet  been  wrought  out — as  was  essential  to  the  very  idea  of  a  Christian 
church — a  community.  The  Apostles  themselves  were  still  entirely 
dependent  on  the  sensible  presence  and  outward  guidance  of  Christ. 
Although  by  their  intercourse  with  Him,  and  by  his  spiritual  operations 
on  them,  they  had  already  received  the  germ  of  a  divine  life  which  had 
manifested  itself  in  single  exercises,  it  had  not  yet  become  an  independent 
power,  a  permanent  possession,  the  animating  principle  of  each  man's 
individuality.  Hence,  they  could  easily  believe  everything  to  be  lost 
when  He  who  was  all  to  them,  was  withdrawn  from  their  sensible 
vision.  He  whom  th-ey  believed  dead  must  again  appear  to  them  in  a 
new  form  of  being,  lifted  above  the  reach  of  death — as  the  divine  living 
One  over  whom  death  had  no  power — in  order  to  raise  them  to  the 
consciousness  of  a  communion  with  him,  which  nothing  could  ever  again 
destroy.  He  appeared  unexpectedly  among  them,  filled  them  with  the 
sense  of  His  presence,  and  then  vanished  out  of  their  sight,  that  they  might 
become  gradually  assured  of  their  spiritual  communion  with  Him,  even 
when  he  was  not  sensibly  present.  All  these  impressions  which  the 
Saviour  by  repeated  interviews  after  his  resurrection  left  with  them,  were 
an  important  preparation  for  that  great  event  which  was  to  mark  the 


THE    PENTKCOSTAL    MIRACLE.  7 

beginning  of  a  new  epoch.  Such  especially  was  that  meeting  at  which, 
after  pronouncing  peace  on  his  disciples,  and  repeating  what  he  had 
previously  said,  that  as  the  Father  had  sent  Him,  so  He  sent  them, 
he  declared  with  a  pertinent  symbolic  sign  that  they  should  receive  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  alone  was  able  to  qualify  them  for  that  work  to  which 
he  had  set  them  apart.  This  act  prefiguring  that  which  would  be  fully 
realized  only  in  the  future,  but  yet  by  its  immediate  eifect  preparing  for 
that  later  event,  was  not  without  special  significance.  It  is  because  that 
great  event  so  prefigured  and  prepared  for,  was  accomplished  at  the  time 
of  the  first  Pentecost  celebrated  by  the  disciples  after  the  Saviour's 
departure,  that  this  feast  is  of  so  great  significance,  as  marking  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Apostolic  Church,  for  here  it  first  made  an  outward 
manifestation  of  itself  according  to  its  inner  nature.  Next  to  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Son  of  God  himself  on  earth,  this  event  most  distinctly 
marked  the  commencement  of  that  new  divine  life,  which,  proceeding  from 
Him  to  all  mankind,  has  since  spread  and  operated  through  successive 
ages,  and  will  continue  to  operate  until  its  final  object  is  attained,  and 
the  whole  race  is  transformed  into  the  image  of  Christ.  If  we  con- 
template this  great  transaction  from  this,  its  only  proper  point  of  view, 
we  shall  not  be  tempted  to  explain  the  greater  by  the  less ;  we  shall  not 
consider  it  strange  that  the  most  wonderful  event  in  the  inner  life  of 
mankind  should  be  accompanied  by  extraordinary  outward  appearances, 
as  sensible  indications  of  its  existence.  Still  less  shall  we  be  induced  to 
look  upon  this  great  transaction — in  which  we  recognise  the  necessary 
beginning  of  a  new  epoch,  an  essential  intermediate  step  in  the  religious 
development  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  the  formation  of  the  Church — as 
something  purely  mythical. 

The  disciples  must  have  looked  forward  with  intense  expectation  to 
the  fulfilment  of  that  promise,  which  the  Saviour  had  so  emphatically 
repeated.*     Ten  days  had  passed  since  their  final  separation  from  their 

*  Professor  Ilitzig,  in  bis  Sendschreiben  uber  Ostern  und  Pfingsten,  (Letters  on  Easter 
and  Pentecost,)  Heidelberg,  1837,  maintains  that  this  event  occurred  not  at  the  Jewish 
Pentecost,  but  some  days  earlier,  as  also  the  day  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  from  Sinai  is  to 
be  fixed  some  days  earlier ;  that  Acts  ii.  1,  is  to  be  understood,  "  when  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost drew  near,"  and  therefore  denotes  a  time  before  the  actual  occurrence  of  this  feast. 
As  evidence  for  this  assertion  it  is  remarked  that,  in  verse  5.  only  the  Jews  settled  in  Je- 
rusalem, those  who,  out  of  all  the  countries  in  which  they  were  scattered,  had  settled  in 
Jerusalem  from  a  strong  religious  feeling,  are  mentioned,  when,  if  the  reference  had  been 
to  one  of  the  principal  feasts,  the  multitude  of  foreign  Jews,  who  came  from  all  parts, 
would  havo  been  especially  noticed.  Against  this  view  we  have  to  urge  the  following 
considerations :  The  words,  Acts  ii.  1,  "  When  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come," 
would  be  most  naturally  understood  of  the  actual  arrival  of  that  day;  as  "  fulness  of  time," 
■jr7i7Jpu/xa  tov  xpovov,  or  "of  times,"  ruv  aaipuv,  Eph.  i.  10,  and  Gal.  iv.  4,  denotes  the 
actual  arrival  of  the  appointed  time ;  though  we  allow  that,  in  certain  connections,  they 
may  denote  the  near  approach  of  some  precise  point  of  time,  as  in  Luke  ix.  51,  where 
yet  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  it  is  not  said  "  the  day,"  but  "  the  days;"  and  thus  the  time  of 
the  departure  of  Christ  from  the  earth,  which  was  now  actually  approaching,  is  marked  in 
general  terms.     But  as  to  this  passage  in  the  Acts,  if  we  understand  the  words  only  of 


8  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN  PALESTINE. 

Divine  Master,  when  that  feast  was  celebrated,  whose  object  so  nearly 
touched  that  which  especially  occupied  their  minds  at  the  time,  and  must 
therefore  have  raised  their  anxious  expectations  still  higher — the  Jewish 
Pentecost,  the  feast  which  was  held  seven  weeks  after  the  Passover. 
This  feast,  according  to  the  original  Mosaic  institution,  related  indeed 
only  to  the  first  fruits  of  Harvest,  nor  is  any  other  reason  for  its  celebra- 
tion adduced  by  Josephus  and  Philo,  and  so  far,  only  a  distant  resem- 
blance could  have  been  traced  between  the  first  fruits  of  the  natural 
Creation  and  those  of  the  new  Spiritual  Creation.  This  analogy,  it  is 
true,  is  often  adverted  to  by  the  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Church,  but 
before  the  fulfilment  of  the  Saviour's  promise,  must  have  been  very  far 
from  the  thoughts  of  the  disciples.  But  if  we  may  credit  the  Jewish 
Traditions,*  this  feast  had  also  a  reference  to  the  giving  of  the  law  on 
Mount  Sinai  ;f  hence  it  especially  was  called  the  feast  of  the  joy  of  the 
Law.J  If  this  be  admitted,  then  the  words  of  Christ  respecting  the  new 
revelation  of  God  by  him, — the  new  relation  established  by  him  between 
God  and  Man,  which  he  himself,  under  the  designation  of  the  N"ew  Cov- 
enant^ placed  in  opposition  to  the  Old, — must  have  been  vividly  recalled 

the  near  approach  of  Pentecost,  we  do  not  see  why  such  a  specification  of  the  time  should 
have  been  given,  since  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of  the  Pentecost  after  this.  Had  Luke 
had  in  mind  a  day  of  giving  the  Law  on  Sinai  different  from  that  of  the  Pentecost,  it 
might  be  expected  that  he  would  have  marked  more  precisely  the  time  in  point,  which 
he  must  have  supposed  to  be  known  at  least  to  his  readers.  Besides,  there  are  no  traces 
to  be  found  that  a  day  in  commemoration  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  was  observed  by  the 
Jews.  But  if  we  understand  the  words  as  referring  to  the  actual  arrival  of  Pentecost,  the 
importance  of  fixing  the  time,  in  relation  to  the  words  immediately  following,  and  the 
whole  sequel  of  the  narrative,  is  very  apparent.  This  feast  would  occasion  the  assembling 
of  believers  at  an  early  hour.  The  words  in  verse  5,  taken  by  themselves,  we  should 
doubtless  have  to  understand  merely  of  such  Jews  as  were  resident  in  Jerusalem,  not  of 
such  as  came  there  first  at  this  time.  But,  from  a  comparison  with  the  9th  verse,  it  is 
evident  that  "  to  dwell,"  naroiKelv,  is  not  to  be  understood  altogether  in  the  same  sense 
in  both  verses ;  that,  in  the  latter,  those  are  spoken  of  who  had  their  residence  elsewhere, 
and  were  only  sojourning  for  a  short  time  in  Jerusalem.  And  if  we  grant  that  the  persons 
spoken  of  belonged  to  the  number  of  the  Jews  who  formerly  dwelt  in  other  lands,  but  for 
a  long  time  past  had  settled  in  Jerusalem,  as  the  capital  of  the  Theocracy,  it  is  clear  that, 
by  the  "strangers  of  Rome,"  inid-rj/iovvTEc  'Pu/ialoi,  we  must  understand  such  as  for  some 
special  cause  were  just  come  to  Jerusalem.  Further,  there  were  also  those  called  Prose- 
lytes, who  were  found  in  great  numbers  at  Jerusalem,  for  some  special  occasion,  and  this 
could  be  no  other  than  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  Doubtless,  by  "  all  the  dwellers  at  Jerusa- 
lem," v.  14,  who  are  distinguished  from  the  Jews,  are  meant  all  who  were  theu  living  at 
Jerusalem,  without  determining  whether  they  had  resided  there  always,  or  only  for  a 
short  time.  The  whole  narrative,  too,  gives  the  impression  that  a  greater  multitude  of 
persons  than  usual  were  then  assembled  at  Jerusalem. 

°  Which  may  be  found  collected  in  a  Dissertation  by  J.  A.  Danz,  in  Meuschen's  No- 
vum Testamentum  e  Talmude  Illustratum,  p.  740. 

f  That  they  are  justified  in  making  such  a  reference,  may  be  concluded  from  comparing 
Exodus  xii.  2,  and  xix.  1. 

|  rrhnn  nhw 

§  The  word  diadr/Ki],  Fi^S,  (covenant,)  which  has  been  used  to  denote  both  the  Old 
and  the  New  Dispensation,  is  taken  from  human  relations,  as  signifying  a  covenant  oi 


THE   PENTECOSTAL    MIRACLE.  9 

to  the  minds  of  the  disciples  by  the  celebration  of  this  feast,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  their  anxious  longing  must  have  been  more  strongly  excited  for 
that  event,  which,  according  to  his  promise,  was  to  confirm  and  glorify 
the  New  Dispensation.  As  all  who  professed  to  be  the  Lord's  disciples 
(their  number  then  amounted  to  one  hundred  and  twenty)*  were  wont 
to  meet  daily  for  mutual  edification,  so  on  thjs  solemn  day  they  were 
assembled  in  a  chamber,f  which,  according  to  Oriental  customs,  was 
specially  assigned  to  devotional  exercises.  It  was  the  first  stated  hour 
of  prayer,  about  nine  in  the  morning,  and,  according  to  what  we  must 
suppose  was  then  the  tone  of  the  disciples'  feelings,  we  may  presume 
that  their  prayers  turned  to  the  object  which  filled  their  souls;  that, on 
the  day  when  the  Old  Law  had  been  promulgated  with  such  glory,  the 
New  also  might  be  glorified  by  the  communication  of  the  promised 
Spirit.  And  what  their  ardent  desires  and  prayers  sought  for,  what  their 
Lord  had  promised,  was  granted.  They  felt  elevated  to  a  new  state  of 
mind,  and  penetrated  by  a  spirit  of  joyfulness  and  power,  to  which  they 

agreement:  but  in  its  application  to  the  relation  between  God  and  man,  the  fundamental 
idea  must  never  be  lost  sight  of,  namely,  that  of  a  relation  in  which  there  is  something 
reciprocal  and  conditional,  as,  in  this  case,  a  communication  from  God  to  man  is  condi- 
tioned by  the  obedience  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  latter. 

*  Without  doubt,  those  expositors  adopt  the  right  view  who  suppose  that  not  merely 
the  apostles  but  all  the  believers  were  at  that  time  assembled;  for  though,  in  Acts  i.  26, 
the  apostles  are  primarily  intended,  yet  the  "  disciples,"  fiadnrai,  collectively,  form  the  chief 
subject,  (i.  15,)  to  which  the  "all,"  anavrec,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  chapter  neces- 
sarily  refers.  It  by  no  means  follows,  that  because,  in  eh.  ii.  14,  the  apostles  alone  are 
represented  as  speakers,  the  assembly  was  confined  to  these  alone;  but  here,  as  elsewhere, 
they  appear  as  the  leaders  and  representatives  of  the  whole  church,  and  thus  are  distin- 
guished from  the  rest  of  the  persons  met  together ;  Acts  iL  35.  The  great  importance  of  the 
fact  which  Peter  brings  forward  in  his  discourse— that  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  which,  under 
the  Old  Covenant,  were  imparted  only  to  a  select  class  of  persons,  such  as  the  prophets, 
under  the  New  Covenant,  which  removes  every  wall  of  separation  in  reference  to  the 
higher  life,  are  communicated  without  distinction  to  all  believers — this  great  fact  would  he 
altogether  lost  sight  of  if  we  confined  everything  here  mentioned  to  the  apostles.  Through- 
out the  Acts,  wherever  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  manifested  by  similar  characteristics  in 
those  who  were  converted  to  a  living  faith,  we  perceive  an  evident  homogeneity  with  this 
first  great  event. 

■j-  Such  a  chamber  was  built  in  the  eastern  style,  on  a  flat  roof,  and  with  a  staircase 
leading  to  the  courtyard,  vnepuov,  nj^»,  (upper  chamber.)  According  to  the  narrative  in 
the  Acts,  we  must  suppose  it  to  have  been  a  chamber  in  a  private  house.  But,  in  itself, 
there  is  nothing  to  forbid  our  supposing  that  the  disciples  met  together  in  the  Temple  at 
the  first  hour  of  prayer  during  the  feast;  their  proceedings  would  thus  have  gained  much 
in  notoriety,  though  not  in  real  importance,  as  Olshausen  maintains ;  (or  it  perfectly  accorded 
with  the  genius  of  the  Christian  Dispensation,  not  being  restricted  to  particular  times  and 
places,  and  obliterating  the  distinction  of  profane  and  sacred,  that  the  first  effusion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  should  take  place,  not  in  a  temple,  but  in  an  ordinary  dwelling.  It  is  stated, 
it  is  true,  in  Luke  xxiv.  53,  that  the  disciples  "were  continually  in  the  temple,"  and  hence 
it  might  the  more  reasonably  be  concluded  that  this  was  the  case  on  the  morning  of  this 
High  Feast;  yet  it  might  be  possible  that,  when  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel,  he  had  not  yet 
obtained  exact  knowledge  of  the  particulars  of  these  events,  or  that  he  made  here  only  a 
brief,  general  statement  of  them. 


10  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

had  hitherto  been  strangers,  they  were  seized  by  an  inspiring  impulse,  to 
testify  to  the  grace  of  redemption,  which  now  for  the  first  time  they 
experienced.  Extraordinary  appearances  of  nature  (a  conjunction  simi- 
lar to  what  has  happened  in  other  important  epochs  in  the  history  of 
mankind)  accompanied  the  great  process  then  going  on  in  the  spiritual 
world,  and  were  symbolic  of  that  which  filled  their  inmost  souls.  An 
earthquake,  attended  by  a  whirlwind,  suddenly  shook  the  building  in 
which  they  were  assembled,  a  symbol  to  them  of  that  Spirit  which 
moved  their  inner  man.  Flaming  lights  in  the  form  of  tongues  streamed 
through  the  chamber,  and  floating  downwards  settled  on  their  heads,  a 
symbol  of  the  new  tongues  of  the  fire  of  inspired  emotion,  which  streamed 
forth  from  the  holy  flame  that  glowed  within  them.* 

The  accountf  of  what  took  place  on  this  occasion,  leads  us  back  at 
last  to  the  depositions  of  those  who  were  present,  the  only  persons  who 
could  give  direct  testimony  concerning  it.  And  with  these  it  might  have 
happened,  that  the  glory  of  the  inner  life  then  imparted  to  them  so  re- 
flected its  splendor  on  surrounding  objects  that,  by  virtue  of  the  internal 
miracle,  (the  elevation  of  their  inward  life  and  consciousness,)  through 
the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  the  objects  of  outward  perception  ap- 
peared quite  changed.  And  thus  it  is  not  impossible  that  everything 
which  presented  itself  to  them  as  a  perception  of  the  outward  senses, 
may  have  been,  in  fact,  only  a  perception  of  the  predominant  inward  men- 
tal state,  a  sensuous  objectiveness  of  what  was  operating  inwardly  with 
divine  power,  similar  to  the  ecstatic  visions  which  are  elsewhere  men- 
tioned in  Holy  Writ.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  this  explanation, 
what  was  divine  in  the  event  remains  the  same,  for  this  was  an  inward 
process  in  the  souls  of  the  disciples,  in  relation  to  which  everything  out- 
ward was  only  of  subordinate  significance.  Still,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
narrative  which  renders  such  a  supposition  necessary.  And  if  we  admit 
that  there  wa3  really  an  earthquake  which  frightened  the  inhabitants  out 
of  their  houses,  it  is  easily  explained  how,  though  it  happened  early  in 
the  morning  of  the  feast,  at  the  hour  of  prayer,  a  great  multitude  would 
be  found  in  the  streets,  and  the  attention  of  one  and  another  being 
attracted  to  the  extraordinary  meeting  of  the  disciples,  how  also,  by 
degrees,  a  great  crowd  of  persons,  curious  to  know  what  was  going  on, 
would  collect  around  the  house.J     The  question  may  be  asked,  By  what 

*  Gregory  the  Great  beautifully  remarks :  "  Hinc  est  quod  super  pastores  primos  in 
linguarum  specie  Spiritus  Sanctus  insedit,  quia  nimirum  quos  repleverit,  de  se  protinus 
loquentes  facit."  Lib.  i.  Ep.  25.  (The  Holy  Spirit  sat  upon  the  first  pastors  in  the  form  o'. 
tongues,  because,  doubtless,  He  moves  those  whom  He  has  filled  with  His  power  imme- 
diately to  sjieak  of  Himself.) 

f  Though  not  furnished  immediately  by  an  eye-witness,  and  hence,  in  single  points, 
failing  in  that  clearness  of  testimony  which  would  otherwise  be  expected. 

%  The  question  is,  How  are  we  to  explain  the  difficult  words,  "this  noise,"  rriq  <j>uvyc  rav- 
rng,  in  Acts  ii.  6  ?  The  pronoun,  "  this,"  ravrric,  might  lead  us  to  refer  the  words  to  what 
immediately  preceded,  the  loud  speaking  of  the  persons  assembled.  But  then  the  use  of 
the  singular  is  remarkable,  and  since  verse  2  is  the  leading  one,  to  which  the  others  are 


THE   PENTECOSTAL    MIRACLE.  H 

was  the  astonishment  of  the  bystanders  especially  excited  ?  At  first 
sight,  the  words  in  Acts  ii.  7-1 1  appear  susceptible  of  but  one  interpre- 
tation, that  the  passers-by  were  astonished  at  hearing  Galileans,  who 
knew  no  language  but  their  own,  speak  in  a  number  of  foreign  languages, 
which  they  could  not  have  learnt  in  a  natural  way  ;*  that,  therefore,  we 
must  conclude  that  the  faculty  was  imparted  to  believers  by  an  extraor- 
dinary operation  of  Divine  power,  of  speaking  in  foreign  languages  not 
acquired  by  the  use  of  thsir  natural  faculties.'  Accordingly,  since  the 
third  century,f  it  has  been  generally  admitted,  that  a  supernatural  gift 

attached,  we  might  refer  ravrvc  to  the  subject  of  that  verse,  and  the  more  as  "  occurring, " 
yevofiivT]^ of  verse  6  seems  to  correspond  to  the  "occurred,"  kyevero, of  verse  2.  But 
not  only  is  it  more  natural  to  refer  the  pronoun  zavTriq  to  what  immediately  precedes  in 
verse  4,  but  also  verses  3  and  4,  rather  than  verse  2,  contain  the  most  important  facts  in 
the  narrative,  which  certainly  favors  the  construction,  in  which  "noise,"  <puv/j, is  under- 
stood of  the  noise  made  by  the  disciples  in  giving  vent  to  their  feelings :  (buy?/  must  then 
be  taken  as  a  collective  noun,  signifying  a  confused  din,  in  which  the  distinction  of  indi- 
vidual voices  was  lost. 

*  The  words  give  us  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  by-standers  took  offence  at  hearing 
the  disciples  speak  of  divine  things  in  a  different  language  from  the  sacred  one. 

•(-  By  many  of  the  ancients  it  has  been  supposed — what  a  literal  interpretation  of  the 
words  ii.  8  will  allow,  and  even  favor — that  the  miracle  consisted  in  this,  that,  though  all 
spoke  in  one  and  the  same  language,  each  of  the  hearers  belie-ved  that  he  heard  them  speak 
in  his  own;-  fiiav  filv  h^rjxeladat  (j>uvf/v,  nollus  6e  unoveoQai  (one  language,  indeed,  was 
spoken,  but  many  were  heard).  Gregory  Naz.  orat.  44,  f.  715,  who  yet  does  not  propound 
this  view  as  peculiarly  his  own.  It  has  lately  been  brought  forward  in  a  peculiar  manner 
by  Schneckenburger,  in  Ins  Beitragen  zur  Elnleitung  iris  Neue  Testament — (Contributions 
towards  an  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,)  p.  84.  The  speakers,  by  the  power  of 
inspiration,  operated  so  powerfulljr  on  the  feelings  of  their  susceptible  hearers,  that  they 
involuntarily  translated  what  went  to  their  hearts  into  their  mother  tongue,  and  under- 
stood it  as  if  it  had  been  spoken  in  that.  By  the  element  of  inspiration,  the  inward  com- 
munion of  feeling  was  so  strongly  in  exercise,  that  the  lingual  wall  of  separation  was 
entirely  taken  away.  But,  in  order  to  determine  the  correctness  of  this  mode  of  explana- 
tion, it  may  be  of  use  to  inquire,  "Was  the  language  in  which  the  hearers  were  addressed 
quite  foreign  to  them,  and  the  natural  medium  of  human  intercourse  being  thus  wholly 
wanting,  did  there  take  place  a  miracle  which  produced  an  immediate  understanding?  Or 
was  the  Aramaic  language  of  the  speakers  not  altogether  foreign  to  the  hearers,  only  not 
so  familiar  as  their  mother-tongue:  it  being  au  effect  of  the  inward  communion  produced 
by  the  power  of  spiritual  influence,  that  they  easily  understood  those  who  spoke  in  an 
unaccustomed  language,  without  feeling  the  want  of  a  familiarity  with  it;  what  was  said 
being  so  deeply  felt,  it  was  as  intelligible  as  if  spoken  in  their  mother-tongue?  This  would 
be,  although  on  the  supposition  of  a  powerful  spiritual  influence,  by  which  the  essence  of 
the  Pentecostal  miracle  is  not  denied  but  presupposed,  an  explicable  psychological  fact. 
We  should  think  of  them  as  men,  speaking  with  the  ardor  of  inspiration,  who  made  an 
impression  on  those  not  capable  of  understanding  a  language  foreign  to  them,  similar  to 
what  we  are  told  of  Bernard's  Sermons  in  Germany  on  the  Crusades,  that,  "  speaking  to 
the  German  people,  he  was  listened  to  with  marvellous  emotion ;  and  their  devotion 
seemed  to  be  excited  more  by  his  discourse,  which  it  was  not  in  their  power  to  under- 
stand, inasmuch  as  they  were  men  of  another  tongue,  than  by  the  intelligible  address  of 
any  interpreter,  however  skilful,  speaking  after  him;  and  the  beating  of  their  breasts,  and 
the  pouring  forth  of  their  tears,  clearly  proved  this,"  quod  Germanicis  etiam  populis  lo- 
quens  miro  audiebatur  affeotu ;  et  de  sermone  ejus,  quern  iutelligere,  utpote  alterius  lin- 
guae homines,  non  valebant,  magisquam  ex  peritissimi  cujuslibet  post  eurn  loquentis  inter. 


12  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN  PALESTINE. 

of  tongues  was  imparted  on  this  occasion,  by  which  the  more  rapid  pro- 
mulgation  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  was  facilitated  and  promoted. 
And  it  might  be  said  that,  as  in  the  apostolic  age,  many  things  were 
effected  immediately  by  the  predominating  creative  agency  of  God's 
Spirit,  which,  in  later  times,  have  been  effected  through  human  means 
appropriated  and  sanctified  by  it ;  so,  in  this  instance,  immediate  inspira- 
tion stood  in  the  place  of  those  natural  lingual  acquirements,  which  in 
later  times  have  served  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel. 

But,  certainly,  the  utility  of  such  a  gift  of  tongues  for  the  spread  of 
divine  truth  in  the  apostolic  times,  will  not  appear  so  great,  if  we  con- 
sider that  the  gospel  had  its  first  and  chief  sphere  of  action  among  the 
nations  belonging  to  the  Roman  Empire,  where  the  knowledge  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  languages  sufficed  for  this  purpose,  and  that  the  one  or 
the  other  of  these  languages,  as  it  was  employed  in  the  intercourse  of 
druly  life,  could  not  be  altogether  strange  to  the  Jews.  As  to  the  Greek 
language,  the  mode  in  which  the  apostles  expressed  themselves  in  it,  the 
traces  of  their  mother-tongue  which  appear  in  their  use  of  it,  prove  that 
they  had  obtained  a  knowledge  of  it,  according  to  the  natural  laws  of 
lingual  acquirement.  In  the  history  of  the  first  propagation  of  Chris- 
tianity, traces  are  never  to  be  found  of  a  supernatural  gift  of  tongues  for 
this  object.  Ancient  tradition,  which  names  certain  persons  as  interpre- 
ters of  the  apostles,  implies  the  contrary.*  Also,  Acts  xiv.  11  shows 
that  Paul  possessed  no  supernatural  gift  of  tongues.  Yet  all  this  does 
not  authorize  us  to  deny  the  reference  to  such  an  endowment  in  the  for- 
mer passage  of  the  Acts,  if  the  explanation  of  the  whole  passage,  both 
in  single  words  and  in  its  connexion,  is  most  favorable  to  this  interpre- 
tation. 

pretis  intellecta  locutione,  asdificari  illorum  devotio  videbatur,  cujus  rei  certa  probatkf 
tunsio  pectorum  erat  et  effusio  lacrimarura.  Mabillon.  ed.  Opp.  Bernard,  torn.  ii.  p.  1119.  And 
this  would  for  the  most  part  agree  with  the  interpretation  of  my  honored  friend  Dr.  Steu- 
del.  But  as  to  the  first  mode  of  explanation,  we  do  not  see  what  can  allow  or  justify  our 
substituting  for  the  common  interpretation  of  the  miracle  in  question  another,  which  does 
not  come  nearer  the  psychological  analogy,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  further  from  it,  and 
does  not  so  naturally  connect  itself  with  the  narrative  as  a  whole.  As  to  au  appeal  to  the 
analogy  with  the  phenomenon  of  animal  magnetism,  we  find  indeed  nothing  objectionable 
in  referring  to  such  an  analogy,  any  more  than  in  general  to  the  analogy  between  the 
supernatural  and  the  natural,  provided  the  difference  of  psychical  circumstances,  and  of 
the  causes  producing  them,  is  not  lost  sight  of;  but  yet,  in  matters  of  science,  where 
everything  must  be  well  grounded,  we  cannot  attach  a  value  to  such  testimony  until  it 
is  ascertained  what  is  really  trustworthy  in  the  accounts  of  such  phenomena.  As  to  the 
second  mode  of  interpretation,  it  can  only  be  maintained  by  our  first  adopting  the  supposi- 
tion, that  we  have  here  not  a  tradition  from  the  first  source,  but  a  representation,  which  only 
mediately  depends  on  the  report  of  eye-witnesses,  and  by  allowing  ourselves,  therefore,  to 
distinguish  what  the"  author  says  from  the  facts  lying  at  the  basis  of  his  narrative. 

*  Thus  Mark  is  called  the  "interpreter,"  ipfirjvEvt;  or  epf/rjvevT^  of  Peter,  (see  Papias 
of  Hierapolis  in  Eusebius,  Ecc.  Hist.  iii.  39,  compared  with  Irenasus,  iii.  1).  The  Basilidi- 
ans  say  the  same  of  one  Glaucias,  Clement's  Stromata,  vii.  765.  On  comparing  every 
thing,  I  must  decid-e  against  the  possible  interpretation  of  those  word?  favored  by  several 


THE  PENTECOSTAL  MIRACLE.  13 

But  we  shall  be  led  to  dissimilar  results  as  we  proceed  from  the  de- 
scription of  the  occurrences  in  the  church  at  Corinth,  which  we  find  in 
the  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  or  from  the  account  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  of  the  wonders  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  An  un- 
prejudiced examination,  as  we  shall  show  more  fully  in  the  sequel,  can 
leave  no  doubt  that  the  extraordinary  appearances  in  the  Corinthian 
church  are  to  be  attributed  not  to  speaking  in  foreign  languages,  but  to 
speaking  in  an  ecstatic  and  highly  elevated  state  of  mind.  The  account 
in  the  Acts  would  "certainly,  on  a  superficial  view,  lead  us  only  to  the 
notion  of  foreign  languages,  and  several  passages  might  without  violence 
be  explained  to  mean  nothing  else  than  that  the  author  of  the  account 
referred  to  the  use  of  such  foreign  languages.  If  now  we  were  justified 
in  the  opinion  that  the  same  idea  of  the  gift  of  tongues  is  applicable  to 
all  the  appearances  of  this  kind  in  the  Apostolic  age ;  and  if  we  must  set 
out  from  one  principal  passage  for  determining  this  idea ;  then  we 
should  use  for  this  purpose  the  record  contained  in  the  First  Epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  inasmuch  as  it  gives  direct  evidence  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  possesses  greater  clearness  and  distinctness,  rather  than  the 
account  in  the  Acts,  which  is  defective  in  these  qualities,  and  in  its  ex- 
isting form  could  not  have  proceeded  immediately  from  an  eye-witness. 
But  the  opinion  that  the  idea  conveyed  by  "  speaking  in  other  or  new 
tongues"  must  have  been  the  same  from  the  beginning,  we  cannot  hold 
with  such  certainty  as  to  apply  it  to  every  single  passage  in  spite  of  all 
the  difficulties  that  present  themselves,  unless  the  exposition  of  all  the 
passages  taken  separately  lead  to  the  same  fundamental  idea.  Now  al- 
though, as  follows  from  what  has  been  said '  above,  the  ancient  opinion 
that  the  apostles  were  furnished  in  a  supernatural  manner  with  a  knoAV- 
ledge  of  languages  for  the  publication  of  the  Gospel,  cannot  be  main- 
tained ;  yet,  by  the  account  in  the  Acts,  as  long  as  we  explain  it  by 
itself  alone,  we  might  be  led  to  that  view,  only  a  little  modified.  And 
we  do  not  venture  to  decide,  a  priori,  that  the  communication  of  such  a 
supernatural  gift  of  tongues  was  an  impossibility.  It  must  be  our  spe- 
cial business,  first  of  all,  to  harmonize  the  facts  as  they  are  reported  in 
the  historical  records,  for  not  till  then  can  we  examine  how  they  are  re- 
eminent  modern  critics — that  they  mean  simply  an  expositor,  one  who  repeated  the  in- 
structions of  Peter  in  his  Gospel,  with  explanatory  remarks; — for  this  designation  of 
Mark  is  always  prefixed  to  early  accounts  of  his  Gospel,  and  at  the  same  time  from  the 
fact  of  his  acting  in  this  capacity  with  Peter,  his  capability  is  inferred  to  note  down  the 
report  made  by  him  of  the  Evangelical  history.  Thus  certainly  the  passage  in  Papias 
must  be  understood:  Mup«of  fiiv  ipft^vevrrjc  Uerpov  yevofievog,  oaa  ifiv7}/i6vev<TEV,di<pii3ue 
typarpev,  (Mark,  who  was  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accurately  whatever  he 
remembered.)  The  second  fact,  that  he  wrote  accurately,  is  founded  on  the  first,  that  he 
accompanied  Peter  as  an  interpreter.  "We  may  well  suppose  that  some  truth  lies  at  the 
basis  of  this  tradition  ;  that  although  Peter  was  not  ignorant  of  the  Greek  language,  and 
could  express  himself  in  it,  he  yet  took  with  him  a  disciple  who  was  thoroughly  master  of 
it,  that  he  might  be  assisted  by  him  in  publishing  the  gospel  among  those  who  spoke  that 
language.     Or  we  must  refer  the  tradition  to  the  Latin  language. 


14  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

lated  to  tlie  known  laws  of  the  world  and  of  human  nature ;  those  laws 
according  to  which  we  see  the  Divine  Spirit  and  Christianity  operate  on 
all  other  occasions.  If  now  we  compare  all  that  is  known  to  us  in  this 
last  respect,  we  shall  never  find  that  the  immediate  illumination  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  takes  the  place  of  the  intellectual  faculty,  or  infuses  in  an  im- 
mediate manner  that  knowledge  which  might  be  attained  by  the  natural 
application  of  the  understanding  and  the  memory.  According  to  the 
same  law  by  which  that  is  not  communicated  by  the  light  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  can  be  discovered  by  the  intelligent  use  of  the  art  of  inter- 
pretation, it  was  not  the  office  of  this  Spirit  to  communicate  a  complete 
knowledge  of  languages.  The  apostles  learnt  languages  when  they 
needed  them,  in  the  same  manner  and  according  to  the  same  laws  as  any 
other  persons,  under  the  guidance  of  that  Spirit  who  endowed  them  for 
their  vocation  in  general.  We  may  indeed  find  examples  of  immediate 
intuition,  or  tact,  or  feeling,  which,  in  certain  moments,  allows  that  to  be 
known  which  otherwise  it  would  take  a  longer  time  to  acquire  by  a  con- 
tinued effort  of  the  understanding.  In  other  cases  it  happens  that  one 
person  by  a  certain  intuitive  power  or  immediate  feeling  knows  what 
•another  must  acquire  in  a  more  tedious  way.  But  although  the  apostles 
were  obliged  to  learn  languages  in  the  common  way,  yet  we  do  not  ven- 
ture to  assert  that,  at  the  time  when  the  new  creation  called  into  being 
by  Christ  first  became  consciously  known  to  the  disciples,  something 
very  different  from  the  ordinary  course  of  things  might  not  have  hap- 
pened. We  could  imagine  that  the  great  divine  event  which  was  to 
communicate  a  higher  spiritual  life  to  mankind,  and  to  remove  from 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth  all  the  oppositions  arising  from,  or  con- 
nected with,  sin,  might  also  be  outwardly  manifested  by  breaking  down 
the  limits  of  national  peculiarities  and  languages  :  by  virtue  of  the  con- 
nexion, which  as  yet  we  are  far  from  perfectly  comprehending,  between 
the  inward  and  outward  life  of  the  spirit,  between  the  inward  view  or 
thought,  and  its  outward  expression,  language,  such  a  sudden  conjunc- 
ture might  result,  a  symbolical  prophetic  wonder,  to  shadow  forth  how 
the  new  divine  life  which  here  first  of  all  manifested  itself  would  claim 
all  the  tongues  of  mankind  as  its  own,  how  by  means  of  Christianity  the 
separation  of  nations  would  be  overcome.  In  one  brief  act  there  would 
thus  be  a  representation  of  what  is  grounded  in  the  essence  of  the  re- 
demption accomplished  by  Christ, — an  immediate  anticipation  of  what 
through  a  course  of  ages  was  mediately  to  be  developed. 

This  view  we  should  certainly  be  compelled  to  adopt,  if  we  could 
venture  to  make  use  of  the  account  in  the  Acts  as  the  report  of  an  eye- 
witness, and  a  narrative  derived  from  a  single  source.  Without  doing 
violence  to  the  words,  we  cannot  fail  to  perceive,  according  to  Acts  ii. 
0, 11,  that  the  person  from  whom  the  account,  as  there  given,  proceeded, 
regarded  the  disciples  as  speaking  in  various  foreign  languages  which 
had  been  hitherto  unknown  to  them.  But  we  have  here  hardly  an  ac- 
count from  the  first  hand,  and  we  find  means,  indeed,  to  distinguish  the 


THE   PENTECOSTAL   MIRACLE.  15 

original  account  of  the  transaction  from  the  modification  given  to  it  in 
the  later  composed  narrative.  If  those  who  came  from  distant  parts  had 
heard  the  Galileans  speak  in  foreign  languages  which  must  have  been 
unknown  to  them,  this  must  have  appeared  to  every  one,  even  such  as 
were  wholly  unsusceptible  of  the  divine  in  the  event,  as  something  ex- 
traordinary, although  they  had  felt  too  little  interest  for  the  deeper 
meaning  of  the  transaction,  or  had  been  too  thoughtless  to  reflect  on 
what  formed  the  groundwork  and  cause  of  so  inexplicable  a  phenome- 
non. But  now,  though  previously  mention  had  been  made  of  speaking 
in  unknown,  foreign  languages,  yet  the  persons  introduced  in  the  follow- 
ing verses  (12  and  13),  express  their  astonishment,  not  as  at  such  an  ex- 
traordinary occurrence,  but  only  as  respecting  something  which  sur- 
prised the  sober-minded  part  of  the  spectators,  so  as  to  leave  them  in 
doubt  what  it  meant,  while  others,  the  altogether  rude  and  carnally- 
minded,  supposed  they  witnessed  only  the  signs  of  intoxication.  All 
this  suits  very  well,  if  we  take  it  as  describing  the  impression  made  by 
the  announcement  of  the  novel  things  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  God, 
uttered  in  a  state  of  elevated  emotion.  Such  utterance  must  have  so 
affected  the  different  classes  of  hearers  that  some  must  have  been  amazed 
by  what  they  could  not  comprehend,  while  others  would  throw  ridicule 
on  the  whole  affair  as  a  mere  exhibition  of  riotous  enthusiasm.  And 
what  the  Apostle  Peter  says  in  ii.  15,  in  answer  to  that  charge,  seems 
rather  to  confirm  this  explanation  than  the  other.  Why  should  he  have 
referred  to  the  fact  that  it  was  not  the  time  of  day  in  which  men  indulge 
in  drinking,  when  he  could  have  brought  forward  proofs  suited  to  en- 
lighten the  carnal  multitude,  that  an  effect  like  this,  the  ability  to  speak 
foreign,  unknown  languages,  could  not  be  one  of  the  effects  of  intoxica- 
tion? 

And  if  we  look  now  at  the  first  words  with  which  the  narrative  of 
these  great  events  begins,  we  shall  not  find  ourselves  compelled  by  them 
to  form  such  a  representation  as  is  derived  from  vv.  7 — 12.  It  is  said  in 
v.  4,  "  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  By  these  "  other 
tongues,"  which  differed  from  common  human  tongues — tongues  as  they 
were  new-created  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost — we  are  by  no  means 
obliged  to  understand  foreign  languages.  So  we  find,  even  in  this  nar- 
rative, elements  which  point  to  something  else  than  what  we  should  in- 
fer from  vv.  7—12.  And  even  these  words  cannot  literally  be  under- 
stood of  purely  distinct  foreign  languages.  It  is  certain  that  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  cities  in  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Lesser  Asia,  Phrygia 
Pamphylia,  Cyrene,  and  in  the  parts  of  Libya  and  Egypt  inhabited  by 
Grecian  and  Jewish  colonies,  the  Greek  language  was  at  that  time  for 
the  most  part  more  current  than  the  ancient  language  of  the  country. 
There  remain  out  of  the  whole  list  of  languages  only  the  Persian,  Syriac, 
Arabic,  Greek  and  Latin  languages.  Unquestionably,  therefore,  the  de- 
scription is  rather  rhetorical  than  purely  historical 


16  THE     CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    IN    PALESTINE. 

If  now  we  look  at  still  other  passages  in  the  Acts  in  which  this  gift 
of  tongues  is  mentioned,  there  appears  in  them  nothing  of  the  kind 
which  we  find  in  the  one  under  consideration.  As  speaking  with  new 
tongues  was  one  of  the  first  marks  of  the  consciousness  that  proceeded 
from  the  new  divine  life  communicated  by  Christ,  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent marks  of  the  new  Christian  inspiration,  so  this  was  everywhere  re- 
peated where  that  event  of  the  first  Christian  Pentecost  was  renewed, 
where  the  Christian  life  and  consciousness  first  revealed  itself,  as  when, 
during  the  preaching  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  faith  germinated  in  the 
already  prepared  hearts  of  the  Gentiles,  and  they  received  the  first  di- 
vide impression  of  the  power  of  the  Gospel  (Acts  x.  46);  or  as  when 
the  disciples  of  John  at  Ephesus  were  first  instructed  fully  respecting 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  imparted  by  him,  and  received  Christian  bap- 
tism, Acts  xix.  6.  In  such  situations  and  circumstances,  the  power  of 
speaking  in  foreign  languages  would  have  been  without  object  or  signi- 
ficance. Whenever  the  consciousness  of  the  grace  of  Redemption  and 
of  a  heavenly  life  springing  from  it,  was  awakened  in  man,  his  own  mo- 
ther-tongue, and  not  a  foreign  language,  would  be  the  most  natural  chan- 
nel for  expressing  his  feelings ;  otherwise,  we  must  suppose  the  exertion  of 
a  magical  power  gaining  the  mastery  over  men,  and  forcing  them,  like 
unconscious  instruments,  to  express  themselves  in  foreign  tones ;  .a  thing 
contrary  to  all  analogy  in  the  operations  of  Christianity. 

In  the  first  of  the  two  passages  we  have  just  quoted,  (Acts  x.  46,) 
"  speaking  with  tongues"  is  connected  with  "  magnifying  God,"  which  in- 
timates the  relation  between  these  two  acts, — the  former  being  a  par- 
ticular mode  of  the  latter.  In  the  second  passage,  (Acts  xix.  6,)  ''speak- 
ing with  tongues"  is  followed  by  "prophesying"  (npo^rjTsveiv) ;  and  as  by 
this  (the  full  explanation  of  which  we  reserve  for  the  sequel)  is  to  be  un- 
derstood addresses  in  a  state  of  spiritual  elevation,  it  may  be  regarded 
as  something  allied  to  the  former. 

If  we  proceed  now  from  this  point,  we  shall  be  led  to  the  following 
opinion :  The  new  spirit  which  filled  the  disciples,  of  which  they  were 
conscious  as  a  common  animating  principle,  created  for  them  a  new  lan- 
guage; the  new  feelings  and  intuitions  revealed  themselves  in  new 
words  ;  the  new  wine  required  new  bottles.  We  know  not  whence  is 
derived  the  origin  of  this  designation,  "  speaking  with  tongues,"  seized  as 
it  is  from  life,  and  corresponding  to  the  essence  of  the  matter.  A  true  tra- 
dition perhaps  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  critically-suspected  passage  at 
the  close  of  Mark's  Gospel,  so  that  Christ  himself  may  have  designated 
the  speaking  in  new  tongues  as  one  mark  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
which  he  imparted  to  his  disciples.  At  all  events,  we  find  what  is  re- 
lated to  it  in  meaning  in  the  discourses  of  Christ, — the  promise  of  speak- 
ing with  the  new  power  which  would  be  imparted  to  the  disciples  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  'new  mouth  and  wisdom'  (Luke  xxi.  15) 
that  he  would  give  them.  At  the  beginning,  this  speaking  with  tongues 
could  not  have  been  employed  for  the  instruction  of  others,  but  could 


THE  PENTECOSTAL  MIRACLE.  17 

only  have  been  an  immediate  involuntary  expression  of  the  heart  im- 
pelled by  inward  pressure  to  reveal  itself  in  words.  We  have  no  reason 
for  taking  any  other  view  of  the  first  Pentecostal  day.  Peter's  dis- 
course was  the  first  intelligible  utterance  for  others,  the  "interpretation," 
tpwveia,  of  the  new  tongues,  or  the  added  "prophesying,"  npo^revetv. 
Thus  it  was  perhaps  something  additional  to  the  original  use  of  this  de- 
signation, when,  as  the  various  degrees  of  Christian  elevation  became 
separated  from  one  another,  the  "  speaking  in  tongues"  was  used  espe- 
cially to  designate  in  the  highest  degree,  spiritual  elevation,  that  ecstatic 
state  in  which  the  thinking  faculty  is  less  consciously  active. 

*  This  continued  to  be  the  general  use  of  the  term  for  the  first  two  centuries,  until,  the 
historical  connection  with  the  youthful  age  of  the  church  being  broken,  the  notion  of  a  su- 
pernatural gift  of  tongues  was  formed.     On  this  point  it  is  worth  while  to  compare  some 
passages  of  Ireuaeus  and  Tertullian.     Irenasus  (lib.  v.  c.  6)  cites  what  Paul  says  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  perfect,  and  then  adds,  Paul  calls  those  perfect,  "  Qui  perceperunt  Spiritual 
Dei,  et  omnibus  linguis  loquuntur  per  Spiritum  Dei,  quemadmodum  et  ipse  loquebatur, 
Kaduc  koI  tvoITluv  uKoimfiev  ddetywv  h  ry  iKK?iT}oia  npo^nrtKU  xapiofiara  Ix6vtuv  Kal 
TtavToSairats  1o.?mvvtuv  dm  tov  nvevfiarog  ylwoaaig  koi   to.  Kpvfia  rtiv  uvdpunuv  e/f 
(pavepbv  dyovrav   tnl   rp   ovpQtpovri  nal  Ta  fivcTrjpia  tov  deov  kuduiyovfiEvuv,  quos  et 
epiritales  apostolus  vocat ;"  (who  have  received  the  Spirit  of  God  and  speak  in  all  tongues 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  just  as  he  himself  spoke,  just  as,  also,  we  hear  many  brethren  in°the 
church  who  possess  prophetic  gifts,  speaking  through  the  Spirit  in  all  kinds  of  tongues, 
making  manifest,  for  profit,  the  hidden  things  of  men,  and  declaring  the  mysteries  of  God, 
whom,  also,  the  Apostle  calls  spiritual).    Though  some  persons  think  the  term  navroda- 
rcalc  (in  all  kinds)  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  languages  of  various  nations,  I  do  not  see 
how  that  can  be,  according  to  its  use  at  that  time,  though  the  original  meaning  of  the 
word  might  be  so  understood.     It  is  particularly  worthy  of' notice,  that  Irenjeus  represents 
this  gift  as  one  of  the  essential  marks  of  Christian  perfection,  as  a  characteristic  of  the 
"spiritual,"  spiritales.    We  cannot  well  comprehend  how  he  could  suppose  anything  so 
detached  and  accidental  as  speaking  in  many  foreign  languages,  to  stand  in  so  close  and 
necessary  a  connexion  with  the  essence  of  Christian  inspiration.    Besides,  he  speaks  of  it 
as  one  of  those  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  which  continued  to  exist  in  the  church  even  in  his  own 
times.      He  evidently  considers   the  "  speaking  with  tongues"  as  something  allied  to 
"  prophesying."     To  the  latter,  he  attributes  the  faculty  of  bringing  to  light  the  hidden 
thoughts  of  men,  and  to  the  former  that  of  publishing  divine  mysteries.     He  sees  nothing 
but  this  in  the  gift  of  tongues  at  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  in  reference  to  that 
event,  places  together  "prophesying  and  speaking  with  tongues,"  "prophetari  et  loqui 
linguis,"  ].  iii.  c.  12.     Tertullian,  from  his  Montanistic  stand-point,  demands  of  Marciou  to 
point  out  among  his  followers  proofs  of  ecstatic  inspiration:    "Edat  aliquem  psalmum, 
aliquam  visionem,  aliquam  orationem  duntaxat  spiritalem  in  ecstasi,  i.  e.  amentia,  si  qua 
linguae  interpretatio  aocesserit."     (Let  him  give  utterance  to  some  psalm,  some'  vision, 
some  prayer,  only  let  it  be  spiritual  in  an  ecstasy,  if  an  interpretation  of  the  tongue  may 
be  added.)     Evidently  in  this  connexion,  the  term  "  tongue,"  lingua,  expresses  speaking  in 
an  ecstasy,  which,  since  what  is  spoken  in  this  state  cannot  be  generally  intelligible, 
must  be  accompanied  by  an  interpretation.     Tertullian  also,  in  the  same  passage  (adv 
Marcion,  1.  v.  c.  8),  applying  the  words  in  Isaiah  xi.  2  to  the  Christian  church,  joins  pro- 
phetari with  linguis  loqui,  and  attributes  both  to  the  "Spirit  of  knowledge,"  Spiritua 
agniiionis,  the  nvev/ia  yvuaeof.     Further,  as  it  appears  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
gift  of  tongues  was  considered  as  still  existing  in  the  church,  it  is  strange  that  the  Fathers 
never  refer  to  it  apologetically,  as  an  undeniable  evidence  to  the  heathen  of  \b&  divine 
power  operating  among  Christians,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  appeal  to  L.e  gift  of  heal- 

a 


18  THE    CHRISTIAN   CHURCH    IN    PALESTINE. 

On  reviewing  the  account  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as  it  lies  before 
us,'  we  certainly  recognise  in  it,  according  to  what  has  been  said,  a 
predominant  ideal  element,  which  has  infused  itself  into  the  conception 
of  the  historical,  and  modified  it.  If  we  have  assumed  as  possible  that 
the  peculiar  essence  and  aim  of  Christianity  was  represented  visibly  in  a 
symbolic  wonder,  we  shall  now  be  compelled  at  the  close  of  our  inquiry, 
to  regard  this  not  as  purely  historical  and  objective,  but  to  transfer  it  to 
the  subjective  point  of  view,  concluding  that  the  conception  of  the  fact, 
was  in  this  particular  instance  involuntarily  altered.  If  any  persons  are 
disposed  to  call  this  a  mythical  element  mingling  with  the  historical,  after 
the  preceding  explanation  of  the  idea,  we  shall  not  dispute  about  a 
name.  Only  we  must  once  for  all  declare,  that  such  single  unhistorical 
traits  can  by  no  means  be  employed  to  stamp  the  whole  narrative  in 
which  they  occur  as  unhistorical  or  mythical.  After  consistent  applica- 
tion of  such  an  arbitrary  principle  of  criticism — that  in  general  where 
anything  is  found  unhistorical  or  mythical,  no  real  history  is  to  be 
recognised — very  little  history  would  be  left ;  the  greater  part  of  history 
would  have  to  be  sacrificed  to  a  destructive  criticism,  which  is  every- 
where quick  to  descry  departures  from  the  strictly  historical.* 

Having  attempted  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  remarkable  occurrences 
of  that  great  day,  we  will  now  pursue  the  narrative  farther. 

The  apostles  held  it  to  be  their  duty  to  defend  the  Christian  com- 
munity against  the  reproaches  cast  upon  it  by  superficial  judges,  and  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  impression  which  this  spectacle  had  made  on  so 
many,  to  lead  them  to  faith  in  Him  whose  divine  power  was  here  mani- 
fested. Peter  came  forward  with  the  rest  of  the  eleven,  and  as  the' 
apostles  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  whole  church,  so  Peter  spoke  in  the 
name  of  the  apostles.  The  promptitude  and  energy  which  made  him 
take  the  lead  in  expressing  the  sentiments  with  which  all  were  animated, 
were  special  gifts,  grounded  in  his  natural  peculiarities ;  hence  the 
distinguished  place  which  he  had  already  taken  among  the  disciples,  and 
which  he  long  after  held  in  the  first  church  at  Jerusalem.    "  Think  not," 

ing  the  sick,  or  of  casting  out  demons,  although  the  ability  to  speak  in  a  variety  of  lan- 
guages not  acquired  in  a  natural  way,  must  have  been  very  astonishing  to  the  heathen. 
In  Origen,  in  whose  times  the  Charismata  of  the  apostolic  church  began  to  be  consid- 
ered as  something  belonging  to  the  past,  we  find  the  first  trace  of  the  opinion  that  has 
since  been  prevalent,  yet  even  in  him  the  two  views  are  mingled,  as  might  be  done 
in  distinguishing  the  twofold  conception,  the  literal  and  the  spiritual.  Compare  Ep.  ad 
Roman,  ed.  De  la  Rue,  t.  iv.  f.  470,  1.  vii.  f.  602,  de  Oratione,  §  2,  torn.  i.  f.  199.  The 
opposition  to  Montanism,  which  had  subjected  the  "speaking  with  tongues,"  yXuaaaic 
"kalelv,  to  abuse,  as  in  the  Corinthian  church,  might  have  contributed  to  sink  into  oblivion 
the  more  ancient  interpretation.  The  "speakiug  in  strange  tongues,"  $evo<puveiv,  tho 
"speaking  frenziedly  and  in  foreign  tongues,"  Xcaeiv  eK^povot;  kuI  uWoTpiorponus  came 
to  be  considered  as  a  mark  of  the  spurious  Montanist  Inspiration,  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  16. 
*  For  a  more  satisfactory  view  of  the  "speaking  with  tongues,"  see  Schaff's  History 
of  the  Apostolic  Church,  pp.  199— 203.— Ed. 


THE    PENTECOSTAL   MIRACLE.  1& 

said  Peter,*  "  that  in  these  unwonted  appearances  you  see  the  effects  of 
inebriety.  These  are  the  signs  of  the  Messianic  era,  predicted  by  the 
prophet  Joel ;  the  manifestations  of  an  extraordinary  effusion  of  the 
Spirit,  which  is  not  limited  to  an  individual  here  and  there,  the  chosen 
organs  of  the  Most  High,  but  in  which  all  share  who  have  entered  into 
a  new  relation  to  God  by  faith  in  the  Messiah.  This  Messianic  era  will 
be  distinguished,  as  the  prophet  foretold,  by  various  extraordinary 
appearances,  as  precursors  of  the  last  decisive  epoch  of  the  general 
judgment.  But  -whoever  believes  in  the  Messiah  has  no  cause  to  fear 
that  judgment,  but  may  be  certain  of  salvation.  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
whose  divine  mission  was  verified  to  you  by  the  miracles  that  attended 
his  earthly  course,  is  the  very  Messiah  promised  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Let  not  his  ignominious  death  be  urged  as  invalidating  his  claims.  It 
was  necessary  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  work  as  the  Messiah,  and  deter- 
mined by  the  counsel  of  God.  The  events  that  followed  his  death  are  a 
proof  of  this,  for  he  rose  from  the  dead,  of  which  we  are  all  witnesses,  and 
has  been  exalted  to  heaven  by  the  divine  power.  From  the  .extraor- 
dinary appearances  which  have  filled  you  with  astonishment,  you  per- 
ceive, that  in  his  glorified  state  he  is  now  operating  with  divine  energy 
among  those  who  believe  on  him.  The  heavenly  Father  has  promised 
that  the  Messiah  shall  fill  all  who  believe  on  him  with  the  power  of  the 
divine  Spirit,  and  this  promise  is  being  fulfilled.  Learn,  then,  from  these 
events,  in  which  you  behold  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  fulfilled, 
the  nothingness  of  all  that  you  have  attempted  against  him,  and  know 
that  God  has  exalted  him  whom  you  crucified,  to  be  Messiah,  the  ruler 
of  God's  kingdom,  and  that,  through  divine  power,  he  will  overcome  all 
its  enemies." 

The  words  of  Peter  impressed  many,  who  asked,  What  must  we  do? 
Peter  called  upon  them  to  repent  of  their  sins,  to  believe  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  who  could  impart  to  them  forgiveness  of  sins  and  freedom  from 
sin, — in  this  faith  to  be  baptized,  and  thus  outwardly  to  join  the  com- 
munion of  the  Messiah  ;  then  would  the  divine  power  of  faith  be  mani- 
fested in  them,  as  it  had  already  been  in  the  community  of  believers ; 
they  would  receive  the  same  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  bestowment  of 
which  was  simultaneous  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  freedom  from 
sin ;  for  the  promise  had  relation  to  all  believers  without  distinction, 
even  to  all  in  distant  parts  of  the  world,  whom  God  by  his  grace  should 
lead  to  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah: 

The  question  may  arise,  Whether  by  these  last  words  Peter  in- 
tended only  the  Jews  scattered  among  distant  nations,  or  whether  he 

*  Bleek  has  correctly  perceived  traces  of  a  Hebrew  original  in  Acts  ii.  24,  where 
consistency  of  the  metaphor  requires,  Sea/xovc  tov  davdrov,  bands  of  death,  =  j-bb  iV^n  or 
V.RW)  the  nets  or  bands  of  death,  (Psalm  xviii,  5  and  6,)  which  the  Alexandrian  translation 
renders  by  ddlvec,  pains,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Vah,  pains,  bands.  Sea 
Bleek's  review  of  Mayerhoff 's  Hist  Kritischer  Einleitung  in  die  pelrinischen  Schriftm, 
in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken.     1836,  iv.  1021. 


20  THE   CHRISTIAN"   CTURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

included  such  among  the  heathen  themselves  as  might  be  brought  to  the 
faith  ?  As  Peter  at  a  subsequent  period,  opposed  the  propagation  of  the 
gospel  among  the  heathen,  there  would  be  an  apparent  inconsistency  in 
now  making  such  a  reference.  But  there  is  really  no  such  contradic- 
tion, for  the  scruple  which  clung  so  closely  to  Peter's  mind  was  founded 
only  on  his  belief  that  heathen  could  not  be  received  into  the  community 
of  believers,  without  first  becoming  Jewish  Proselytes,  by  the  exact  ob- 
servance of  the  Mosaic  law.  Now,  according  to  the  declarations  of  the 
prophets,  he  might  expect  that  in  the  Messianic  times  the  heathen  would 
be  brought  to  join  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  so  that  this  sentiment 
might  occur  to  him  consistently  with  the  views  he  then  held,  and  he 
might  express  it  without  giving  offence  to  the  Jews.  Yet  this  interpre- 
tationis  not  absolutely  necessary,  for  all  the  three  clauses  (Actsii.  39)  might 
also  be  used  to  denote  only  the  aggregate  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  its  full 
extent ;  and  it  might  rather  be  expected  that  Peter,  who  had  been  speak- 
ing of  the  Jews  present  and  their  children, if  he  had  thought  of  the  heathen 
also,  would  have  carefully  distinguished  them  from  the  Jews.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  description,  "  All  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,"  appears  too  comprehensive  to  justify  us  in, 
confining  it  to  persons  originally  belonging  to  the  Jewish  nation.  Hence, 
it  is  most  probable,  that  in  Peter's  mind,  when  he  used  this  expression, 
there  floated  an  indistinct  allusion  to  believers  from  other  nations, 
though  it  did  not  appear  of  sufficient  importance  for  him  to  give  it  a 
greater  prominence  in  his  address,  as  it  was  his  conviction  that  the 
converts  to  Christianity  from  heathenism  must  first  become  Jews. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  FIRST  FORM  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY,  AND  THE  FIRST  GERM  OF 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

The  existence  and  first  development  of  the  Christian  church  rests  on 
an  historical  foundation — on  the  acknowledgment  of  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah — not  on  a  certain  system  of  ideas.  Christ  did  not  as  a 
teacher  propound  a  certain  number  of  articles  of  faith,  but  while  ex- 
hibiting himself  as  the  Redeemer  and  Sovereign  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
as  the  end  of  all  the  divine  promises,  he  founded  his  church  on  the  facts 
of  his  life  and  sufferings,  and  of  his  triumph  over  death  by  the  resurrec- 
tion. Thus  the  first  development  of  the  church  proceeded  not  from  a 
certain  system  of  ideas  set  forth  in  a  creed,  but  only  from  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  one  fact  which  included  in  itself  all  the  rest  belonging  to 
the  essence  of  Christianity,  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  Mes- 


ONE   ARTICLE    OF   FAITH. — BAPTISMAL   FORMULA.  21 

Biali,  which  also  involved  the  facts  by  which  he  was  accredited  as  such 
by  God,  and  demonstrated  to  mankind  ;  namely,  his  resurrection,  glori- 
fication, and  continual  agency  on  earth  for  the  establishment  of  his 
kingdom  in  Divine  power. 

Hence,  as  at  first,  all  those  who  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
withdrew  from  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  formed  themselves 
into  a  distinct  community;  and  as  it  must  happen,  that  in  the  course  of 
time,  the  genuine  and  false  disciples  would  of  themselves  separate  from 
each  other,  so  all  who  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  were  alike 
baptized  without  fuller  or  longer  instruction,  such  as  in  later  times  has 
preceded  baptism.  There  was  only  one  article  of  faith  Avhich  constituted 
the  peculiar  mark  of  the  Christian  profession,  and  from  this  point  be- 
lievers were  led  to  a  clearer  and  fuller  knowledge  of  the  whole  con- 
tents of  the  Christian  faith,  by  the  continual  enlightening  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  that  article  was  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  It  naturally  fol- 
lowed that  they  ascribed  to  him  the  whole  idea  of  what  the  Messiah, 
according  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  meaning  and  spirit  of  the  Old 
Testament  promises,  was  to  be, — the  Redeemer  from  sin,  the  Ruler  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  to  whom  their  whole  lives  Avere  to  be  devoted,  and 
whose  laws  were  to  be  followed  in  all  things.  And  he  would  manifest  him- 
self as  the  Ruler  of  God's  kingdom,  by  the  communication  of  a  new  divine 
principle  of  life,  which  should  impart  to  those  redeemed  and  governed  by 
him  the  certainty  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  which  should  mould  their 
whole  lives  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Messiah  and  his  kingdom,  and 
should  be  the  pledge  of  all  the  blessings  yet  to  be  imparted  to  them  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  until  its  consummation.  Whoever  acknowledged  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah,  received  him,  consequently^  the  infallible,  divine  prophet, 
and  implicitly  submitted  to  his  instructions  as  communicated  by  his  per- 
sonal ministry,  and  afterwards  by  his  inspired  organs, the  Apostles.  Hence 
^baptism  at  this  period,  in  its  peculiar  Christian  meaning,  having  reference 
to  this  one  article  of  faith  which  constituted  the  essence  of  Christianity, 
was  designated  as  baptism  into  Jesus,  into  the  name  of  Jesus  ;  it  was 
the  holy  rite  which  sealed  the  connexion  with  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
From  this  designation  of  baptism  we  cannot  indeed  conclude  with  cer- 
tainty that  there  was  no  other  baptismal  formula  than  this.  Still,  it  is 
probable  that  in  the  original  apostolic  formula  no  reference  was  made 
except  to  this  one  article^  This  shorter  baptismal  formula  contains  in 
itself  every  thing  which  is  further  developed  in  the  longer  formula  after- 
wards generally  used  ;  the  reference  to  God,  who  has  revealed  and  shown 
himself  in  and  by  the  Son,  as  a  Father ;  and  to  the  Spirit  of  the  Father, 
whom  Christ  imparts  to  believers  as  the  new  spirit  of  life,  the  Spirit 
of  holiness,  who,  being  thus  imparted,  is  distinguished  as  the  Spirit  of 
Christ.  That  one  article  of  faith  included,  therefore,  the  whole  of 
Christian  doctrine.  But  the  distinct  knowledge  of  its  contents  was  by 
no  means  immediately  developed  in  the  minds  of  the  first  converts,  or 
freed  from  foreign  admixtures  resulting  from  Jewish  modes  ot  thinking, 


22  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

which,  when  applied  to  religion,needed  first  to  be  stripped  of  that  national 
and  carnal  veil  with  which  they  were  covered.  As  the  popular  Jewish 
notion  of  the  Messiah  excluded  many  things  which  were  characteristic  of 
this  idea  as  formed  and  understood- in  a  Christian  sense,  and  as  it  in 
eluded  many  elements  not  in  accordance  with  Christian  views,  one  result 
was,  that  in  the  first  Christian  communities  formed  among  the  Jews, 
various  discordant  notions  of  religion  were  mingled ;  there  were  many 
errors  arising  from  the  prevailing  Jewish  mode  of  thinking,  some  of  which 
were  by  degrees  corrected  in  those  who  surrendered  themselves  to  the 
expansive  and  purifying  influence  of  the  Christian  spirit ;  but  in  those 
over  whom  that  spirit  could  not  exert  such  power,  these  errors  formed 
the  germ  of  the  later  Jewish-Christian  (the  so-called  Ebionitish)  doctrine, 
which  set  itself  in  direct  hostility  to  the  pure  gospel. 

Thus  we  are  not  justified  in  assuming  that  the  Three  Thousand  who 
were  converted  on  one  day,  became  transformed  at  once  into  genuine 
Christians.  The  Holy  Spirit  operated  then  by  the  publication  of  divine 
truth,  according  to  the  same  law  as  in  all  succeeding  ages,  not  with  a  sud- 
den transforming  magical  power,  but  according  to  the  measure  of  the 
free  self-determination  of  the  human  will.  Hence,  also,  in  these  first 
Christian  societies,  as  in  all  later  ones,  although  originating  in  so  mighty 
an  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  foreign  and  spurious  were  mingled 
with  the  genuine.  A  powerful  impression  is  not  necessarily  deeply 
penetrating  and  permanent.  In  fact,  the  more  powerful  the  energy  of 
the  operation,  the  more  easily  would  it  happen  that  many  would  be 
affected  whose  hearts  were  not  yet  susceptible  enough  for  the  divine 
seed  to  take  deep  root.  And  in  outward  appearance,  there  were  no  in- 
fallible marks  of  distinction  between  genuine  and  merely  apparent  con- 
versions. The  example  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and  the  disputes  of  the 
Palestinian  and  Hellenistic  Christians,  evince  even  at  that  early  period, 
that  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  did  not  preserve  the  church  entirely  pure 
from  foreign  admixtures. 

The  form  of  the  Christian  community  and  of  the  public  Christian  wor- 
ship, the  archetype  of  all  the  later  Christian  cultus,  arose  at  first,  with- 
out any  preconceived  plan,  from  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  higher  life 
that  belonged  to  all  true  Christians.  There  was,  however,  this  difference, 
that  the  first  Christian  community  constituted  as  it  were  one  family  ;  the 
power  of  the  newly  awakened  feeling  of  Christian  fellowship,  the  feeling 
of  the  common  grace  of  redemption,  outweighed  all  other  personal  and 
public  feelings,  and  all  other  relations  were  subordinated  to  this  one 
great  relation.  But,  in  later  times,  the  distinction  between  the  church 
and  the  family  became  more  marked,  and  many  things  which  were  at 
first  accomplished  in  the  church  as  a  family  community,  could  afterward 
be  duly  attended  to  only  in  the  narrower  communion  of  Christian  family 
life. 

The  first  Christians  assembled  daily  either  in  the  Temple,  or  in  private 
houses ;  in  the  latter  case  they  met  in  small  companies,  since  their  num« 


THE  CHURCH  A  FAMILY. AGAPAE.  23 

bers  wore  already  too  great  for  one  chamber  to  hold  them  all.  Dis- 
courses on  the  doctrine  of  salvation  were  addressed  to  believws  and  to 
those  who  were  just  won  over  to  the  faith,  and  prayers  were  offered  up. 
As  the  predominating  consciousness  of  the  joy  of  redemption  influenced 
and  sanctified  the  whole  of  earthly  life,  nothing  earthly  could  remain  un« 
transformed  by  this  relation  to  a  higher  state.  Thus  even  the  daily  meal 
of  which  believers  partook  as  members  of  one  family  was  sanctified  by 
it.*  They  commemorated  the  last  supper  of  the  disciples  with  Christ, 
and  their  brotherly  union  with  one  another.  At  the  close  of  the  meal, 
the  presider  distributed  bread  and  wine  to  the  persons  present,  as  a 
memorial  of  Christ's  similar  distribution  to  the  disciples.  Thus  every 
meal  was  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  and,  at  the  same  time,  was  a  meal  of 
brotherly  love.  Hence  the  designations  afterwards  chosen  were,  del-nvov 
Kvpiov  and  dydnr],  "  Lord's  Supper"  and  "  Love-feast.f" 

From  ancient  times  an  opinion  has  prevailed,  which  is  apparently 
favored  by  many  passages  in  the  Acts,  that  the  spirit  of  brotherly  love 
impelled  the  first  Christians  to  renounce  all  their  earthly  possessions,  and 
to  establish  a  perfect  intercommunity  of  goods.  When,  in  later  times, 
it  was  perceived  how  very  much  the  Christian  life  had  receded  from  the 
model  of  this  fellowship  of  brotherly  love,  an  earnest  longing  to  regain 
it  was  awakened,  to  which  we  must  attribute  some  attempts  to  effect 
what  had  been  realized  by  the  first  glow  of  love  in  the  apostolic  times 
— such  were  the  orders  of  Monkhood,  Canonical  Communities  of  the 
clergy,  the  Mendicant  Friars,  the  Apostolici,  and  the  Waldenses  in  tho 

*  The  hypothesis  lately  revived,  that  such  institutions  were  borrowed  from  the  Essenes, 
is  so  entirely  gratuitous  as  to  require  no  refutation. 

f  In  Acts  ii.  42,  we  find  the  first  general  account  of  what  passed  in  the  assemblies  of 
the  first  Christians.  Mosheim  thinks,  since  every  thing  else  is  mentioned  that  is  found  in 
later  meetings  of  the  church,  that  the  "  fellowship,"  noivuvia,  refers  to  the  collections  made 
on  these  occasions.  But  the  context  does  not  favor  the  use  of  the  word  koivcjvio,  in  so 
restricted  a  signification,  which,  therefore,  if  it  were  the  meaning  intended,  would  re- 
quire a  more  definite  term.  See  Meyer's  Commentary.  We  may  most  naturally  consider 
it  as  referring  to  the  whole  of  the  social  Christian  intercourse,  two  principal  parts  of  which 
were,  the  common  meal  and  prayer.  Luke  mentions  prayer  last,  probably  because  tlio 
connexion  between  the  common  meal  and  prayer,  which  made  an  essential  part  of 
the  love-feast,  was  floating  in  his  mind.  Olshausen  maintains  (see  his  Commentary, 
Trans,  ed.  by  Dr.  Kendrick,  vol.  III.  p.  213),  that  this  interpretation  is  inadmissi- 
ble, because  in  the  enumeration  every  thing  relates  to  divine  worship,  as  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  preceding  expression  "  doctrine,"  6i6aXV-  But  this  supposition  is  want- 
ing in  proof.  According  to  what  we  have  before  remarked,  the  communion  of  the  church, 
and  of  the  family,  were  not  at  that  time  separated  from  one  another;  no  strict  line  of 
demarcation  was  drawn  between  what  belonged  to  the  Christian  cultus  in  a  narrower 
sense,  and  what  related  to  the  Christian  life  and  communion  generally.  Nor  can  the 
reason  alleged  by  Olshausen  be  valid,  that  if  my  interpretation  were  correct,  the  word 
"fellowship,"  Koivuvia,  must  have  been  placed  first,  for  it  is  altogether  in  order  that  that 
should  be  placed  first,  which  refers  alone  to  the  directive  functions  of  the  apostles,  that 
then  the  mention  should  follow  of  the  reciprocal  Christian  communiou'of  all  the  members 
with  one  another,  and  that  of  this  communion  two  particulars  should  be  especially 
noticed. 


24  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

12th  and  13th  centuries.  At  all  events,  supposing  this  opinion  to  be 
well  founded,  this  practice  of  the  apostolic  church  ought  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  in  a  literal  sense  the  ideal  for  imitation  in  all  succeeding  ages ; 
it  must  have  been  a  deviation  from  the  natural  course  of  social  develop- 
ment, such  as  could  agree  only  with  the  extraordinary  manifestation  of 
the  divine  life  in  the  human  race  at  that  particular  period.  Only  the 
spirit  and  disposition  here  manifested  in  thus  amalgamating  the  earthly 
possessions  of  numbers  into  one  common  fund,  are  the  models  for  the 
church  in  its  development  through  all  ages.  For  as  Christianity  never 
subverts  the  existing  natural  course  of  development  in  the  human  race, 
but  sanctifies  it  by  a  new  spirit,  it  necessarily  recognises  the  division  of 
wealth  (based  on  that  development)1,  and  the  inequalities  arising  from  it 
in  the  social  relations  ;  while  it  draws  from  these  inequalities  materials 
for  the  formation  and  exercise  of  Christian  virtue,  and  strives  to  lessen 
them  by  the  only  true  and  never-failing  means,*  namely,  the  power  of 
love.  This,  we  find,  agrees  with  the  practice  of  the  churches  subse- 
quently founded  by  the  apostles,  and  with  the  directions  given  by  Paul 
for  the  exercise  of  Christian  liberality,  2  Cor.  viii.  13. 

And  even  in  the  view  that  this  community  of  goods  was  only  the 
effect  of  a  peculiar  and  temporary  manifestation  of  Christian  zeal, 
foreign  to  the  later  development  of  the  church,  we  shall  find  many 
difficulties.  The  first  Christians  formed  themselves  into  no  monkish 
fraternities,  nor  lived  as  hermits  secluded  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  but, 
as  history  shows  us,  continued  in  the  same  civil  relations  as  before  their 
conversion ;  nor  have  we  any  proof  that  a  community  of  goods  was 
universal  for  a  time,  and  was  then  followed  by  a  return  to  the  usual 
arrangements  of  society.  On  the  contrary,  several  circumstances  men- 
tioned in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  are  at  variance  with  the  notion  of 
such  a  relinquishment  of  private  property.  Peter  said  expressly  to 
Ananias  that  it  depended  on  himself  to  sell  or  to  keep  his  land,  and  that 
even  after  the  sale,  the  sum  received  for  it  was  entirely  at  his  own 
disposal,  Acts  v.  4.  In  the  6th  chapter  of  the  Acts,  there  is  an  account 
of  a  distribution  of  alms  to  the  widows,  but  not  a  word  is  said  of  a  com- 

*  As  the  influence  which  Christianity  exercises  over  mankind  is  not  always  accom- 
panied with  a  clear  discernment  of  its  principles,  there  have  been  many  erroneous  tenden- 
cies, which,  though  hostile  to  Christianity,  have  derived  their  nourishment  froiii  it, — half- 
truths  torn  from  their  connexion  with  the  whole  body  of  revealed  truth,  and  hence  mis- 
understood and  misapplied ;  of  this,  the  St.  Simonians  furnish  an  example.  They  had 
before  them  an  indistinct  conception  of  the  Christian  idea  of  equality  ;  but  as  it  was  not 
understood  in  the  Christian  sense,  they  have  attempted  to  realize  it  in  a  different  manner. 
They  have  striven  to  accomplish  by  outward  arrangements,  what  Christianity  aims  at 
developing  gradually  through  the  mind  and  disposition,  and  have  thus  fallen  into  absurdi- 
ties. Christianity  tends  by  the  spirit  of  love  to  reduce  the  opposition  between  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  community,  and  to  produce  a  harmonious  intorpenotration  of  interests.  St. 
Simonianism,  and  such  tendencies,  on  the  contrary,  consciously  or  unconsciously  in  union 
with  the  pantheistic  spirit  of  the  present  day,  sacrifice  the  individual  to  the  community, 
and  thus  deprive  him  of  his  true  vital  importance. 


COMMUNITY    OF    GOODS.  25 

mon  stock  for  the  support  of  the  whole  body  of  believers.  "We  find  in 
Acts  xii.  12,  that  Mary  possessed  a  house  at  Jerusalem,  which  we  cannot 
suppose  to  have  been  purchased  at  the  general  cost.  These  facts  plainly 
show,  that  we  are  not  to  imagine,  even  in  this  first  Christian  society,  a 
renunciation  of  all  private  property. 

On  comparing  the  accounts  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  must 
either  say,  that  in  single  passages  which  treat  of  the  community  of  goods 
everything  is  not  to  be  Understood  in  a  strictly  literal  sense,  since  in  an 
artless  narrative,  even  by  an  eye-witness,  if  his  feelings  are  excited  by  the 
subject  of  his  representation,  his  picture  will  easily  and  naturally  receive 
a  higher  coloring;  or,  that  in  the  narrative  given  in  the  Acts,  the  various 
gradations  in  the  form  of  this  community  of  goods — the  eccentric  relation 
accruing  from  the  first  glow  of  Christian  enthusiasm,  and  the  later 
limitation  of  the  community  of  goods  produced  by  circumstances,  the 
return  of  things  to  their  wonted  channels, — could  not  be  kept  distinct  from 
one  another ;  that  things  of  different  kinds  were  mingled  together  in  the 
narrative,  which  might  easily  happen  in  an  historical  representation 
collected  .from  various  sources.  Whichever  of  the  two  suppositions 
we  prefer,  it  is  plain  that  no  one  can  be  justified,  merely  on  account  of 
this  difficulty,  in  suspecting*  the  historical  authority  of  the  narratives. 

At  all  events,  the  community  of  goods  practised  by  the  first  Chris- 
tians, whatever  form  we  suppose  it  to  have  taken,  was  something  that 
proceeded  from  within  ;  it  was  the  natural  expression  of  a  spirit  which 
bound  them  all  to  one  another.  Everything  here  must  have  sprung'from 
the  power  of  the  one  Spirit,  must  have  depended  solely  on  the  free  act 
of  the  pure  disposition  ;  nothing  was  effected  by  the  force  of  outward 
law.  This  is  manifest  in  the  memorable  transaction  with  Ananias  and 
Sapphira.  They  both  were  anxious  not  to  be  considered  by  the  apostles 
and  the  church  as  inferior  to  others  in  the  liberality  of  their  contri- 
butions. Perhaps  a  superstitious  belief  in  the  merit  of  good  works  was 
mingled  with  other  motives,  so  that  they  wished  to  be  as  meritorious  as 
others  in  God's  sight  also.  They  could  not,  however,  prevail  on  them- 
selves to  surrender  the  whole  of  their  property,  but  brought  a  part,  and 
pretended  that  it  was  the  whole.  Peter  detected  the  dissimulation  and 
hypocrisy  of  Ananias,  whether  by  a  glance  into  the  secret  recesses  of  his 
heart,  afforded  by  the  immediate  influence  of  God's  Spirit,  or  by  a  natural 
sagacity  guided  by  the  same  spirit,  we  cannot  deoide  with  certainty  from 
the  narrative.  Nor  is  it  a  question  of  importance,  for  who  can  so  exactly 
draw  the  line  between  the  divine  and  the  human,  in  organs  animated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  The  criminality  of  Ananias  did  not  consist  in  his 
not  deciding  to  part  with  the  whole  amount;  of  his  property ;  for  the 
words  of  Peter  addressed  to  him  show  that  no  exact  measure  of  giving 
was  prescribed  ;  each  one  was  left  to  contribute  according  to  his  peculiar 
circumstances    and  the   degree  of  love  that   animated  him.     But  the 

*  Like  Dr.  Baur. 


26  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

hypocrjsy  with  which  he  attempted  to  make  a  show  of  greater  love  than 
he  actually  felt — the  falsehood  by  which,  when  it  took  possession  of  his 
soul^  the  Christian  life  must  have  been  utterly  polluted  and  adulterated— 
this  it  was  which  Peter  denounced,  as  a  work  of  the  spirit  of  Satan,  for 
falsehood  is  the  fountain  of  all  evil.  Peter  charged  him  with  lying  to 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  with  lying  not  to  men  but  to  God,  since  he  must  have 
beheld  in  the  apostles  the  organs  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  and  acting 
in  God's  name — that  God  who  was  himself  present  in  the  assembly  of 
believers,  as  a  witness  of  his  intentions — and  yet  thought  that  he  could 
obtain  credit  before  God  for  his  good  works.  Peter  uttered  his  solemn 
rebuke  with  a  divine  confidence  springing  from  a  regard  to  that  holy 
cause  which  was  to  be  preserved  from  all  foreign  mixtures,  and  from  the 
consciousness  of  being  in  an  office  entrusted  to  him  by  God,  and  in  which 
he  was  supported  by  divine  power.  When  we  reflect  what  Peter  was 
in  the  eyes  of  Ananias,  how  the  superstitious  hypocrite  must  have  been 
confounded  and  thunderstruck  to  see  his  falsehood  detected,  how  the 
holy  denunciations  of  a  man  speaking  to  his  conscience  with  such  divine 
confidence  must  have  acted  on  his  terrified  feelings,  and  how  he  must 
have  been  seized  with  alarm,  in  view  of  the  judgments  of  a  Holy  God, 
we  shall  not  find  it  very  difficult  to  conceive  that  the  words  of  the 
apostle  would  produce  so  great  an  effect.  The  divine  and  the  natural 
seem  here  to  have  been  closely  connected.  What  Paul  so  confidently 
asserts  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  of  his  ability  to  inflict  pun- 
ishment, testifies  to  the  conscious  possession  by  the  apostles  of  such 
divine  power.  And  when  Sapphira,  without  suspecting  what  had  taken 
place,  three  hours  after,  entered  the  assembly,  Peter  at  first  endeavored 
to  rouse  her  conscience  by  his  interrogations  ;  but  since,  instead  of  being 
aroused  to  consideration  and  repentance,  she  was  hardened  in  her  hypo- 
crisy, Peter  accused  her  of  having  concerted  with  her  husband,  to  put, 
as  it  were,  the  Spirit  of  God  to  the  proof,  whether  he  might  not  be 
deceived  by  her  hypocrisy.  He  then  menaced  her  with  the  judgment 
of  God,  which  had  just  been  inflicted  on  her  husband.  The  words  of 
the  apostle  were  in  this  instance  aided  by  the  impression  of  her  husband's 
fate,  and  striking  the  conscience  of  the  hypocrite,  produced  the  same 
effect  as  on  her  husband.  Thus  important  was  this  judgment,  to 
guard  the  first  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  admixture  of  that 
poison  which  is  always  most  prejudicial  to  the  operations  of  divine  power 
on  mankind,  and  to  secure  a  reverence  for  the  apostolic  authority,  which 
was  so  necessary  as  an  external  governing  power  for  the  development 
of  the  primitive  church,  until  it  had  advanced  to  an  independent  stead- 
fastness and  maturity  in  the  faith.* 

*  I  can  by  no  means  assent  to  Baur's  assertion  in  his  work  on  the  Apostle  Paul,  p.  22, 
that  the  Apostles  are  delineated  in  the  Acts  as  superhuman,  almost  as  magicians.  I  can« 
not  approve  of  his  exposition  of  the  passage  in  Acts  v.  13,  which  he  thinks  strongly  sup- 
ports his  views,  understanding  the  words  "  the  rest"  XolttoIc;,  to  mean  the  other  Christiana 
of  whom  none  ventured  to  join  themselves  to  the  apostles,  but  were  kept  at  a  distance 


ANANIAS   AND   SAPPHIBA.  27 

The  disciples  did  not  immediately  attain  to  a  clear  understanding  of 
that  call,  which  Christ  had  already  given  them  by  so  many  intimations,* 
to  form  a  church  entirely  separated  from  the  existing  Jewish  economy  ; 
to  that  economy  they  adhered  ;  all  the  forms  of  the  national  Theoc- 
racy, in  which  their  religious  consciousness  still,  as  formerly,  exercised 
itself,  were  sacred  in  their  esteem,  though  a  higher  principle  of  life 
had  been  imparted,  by  which  these  were  to  be  more  and  more  spiritu- 
alized and  transformed.  They  remained  outwardly  Jews,  although,  in 
proportion  as  their"  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Redeemer  became  clearer  and 
stronger,  they  inwardly  ceased  to  be  Jews,  and  all  external  rites  assumed 
a  different  relation  to  their  internal  life.  It  was  their  belief,  that  the 
existing  religious  forms  would  continue  till  the  second  coming  of  Christ, 
when  a  new  and  higher  order  of  things  would  be  established,  and  this 
great  change  they  expected  would  shortly  take  place.  No  unprejudiced 
reader  of  the  New  Testament  can  fail  to  perceive  that  such  an  expec- 
tation filled  the  souls  of  the  apostles  ;  and  it  could  not  be  otherwise. 
The  gaze  that  is  fixed  on  a  distant  object  can  as  little  measure  time  as 
space.  To  one  whose  look  is  directed  on  the  object  of  his  anxiety,  the 
distant  appears  nigh  at  hand ;  he  overlooks  the  windings  of  the  way, 
which  separate  him  from  the  object  of  his  anxious  expectation.  But 
gradually  the  objects  separate  themselves  which  at  first  were  mingled 
together  in  the  perspective.  So  it  was  with  the  prophets  who  gazed  on 
the  Messianic  times  from  the  Old  Testament  stand-point ;  and  so  it  was 
with  the  apostles,  as  they  directed  their  looks  to  the  second  advent  of 
Christ.  Christ  himself  has  left  no  distinct  information  respecting  the 
time  in  which  this  decisive  event  is  to  happen,  but  has  expressly  informed 
us  that  it  belongs  to  those  hidden  things  which  are  known  only  by  their 
fulfilment.  It  would  require  a  comparison  of  the  discourses  of  Christ 
with  one  another  and  deep  reflection  on  their  contents,  to  understand  the 
course  of  his  kingdom's  development,  and  to  judge  aright  respecting  the 
nearness  or  distance  of  its  end.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  many  isolated 
expressions  of  Christ  which  present  in  perspective  the  points  of  greatest 
moment  relating  to  the  progress  of  his  kingdom,  may  be  understood  as 
if  that  last  decisive  period  were  at  hand  ;  on  the  other  hand,  his  parables 
indicate  a  slower  process  of  development ;  as  if  it  would  not  suddenly,  but 
gradually,  and  working  outwards  from  within,  pervade  and  penetrate 
the  life  of  humanity.  But  naturally  these  isolated,  brief  expressions  are 
at  first  most  easily  recollected,  and  absorb  the  attention.  The  contents 
of  the  parabolic  intimations  are  learnt  gradually,  and  are  better  under- 

by  reverential  awe.  By  the  "  all,"  uiravreg,  in  v.  12,  can  only  be  understood  the  collec- 
tive body  of  believers,  in  distinction  from  the  apostles.  "  The  rest "  distinguished  from  the 
anavrec  can  only  be  those  who  were  not  Christians,  afterwards  called  "  the  people,"  Aabc, 
who  reverenced  the  Christian  community  on  account  of  the  Divine  powers  displayed  in  it, 
a  view  which  is  in  every  respect  confirmed  by  a  comparison  with  ii.  47. 
*  See  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  86,  91,  101,  124,  205. 


28  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN  PALESTINE. 

stood  from  the  history  itself.  It  belonged  to  the  nature  of  Christianity, 
that  it  should  represent  itself  at  first,  not  as  a  new  principle  for  earthly 
history,  as  if  destined  to  form  a  new  cultus,  and  to  give  a  new  form  to 
all  earthly  relations ;  it  was  not  the  idea  of  a  new  Christian  time  that 
came  first  into  consciousness,  but  everything  appeared  only  as  a  point 
of  transition  to  a  new,  heavenly,  eternal  order  of  things  which  was  to  be 
introduced  at  the  second  advent.  Hence,  at  first,  everything  earthly 
must  have  appeared  as  ready  to  vanish,  as  quickly  passing  away,  and  the 
eye  was  fixed  only  on  that  future  heavenly  kingdom  as  the  unchangeable 
state,  to  which  believers  in  spirit  and  disposition  already  belonged.  It 
would  only  by  degrees  be  rendered  apparent  that  the  process  of  the 
world's  transformation  coming  forth  into  outward  appearance  would  not 
be  effected  suddenly  at  the  advent  of  Christ,  but  must  make  its  way 
by  internal  changes  in  a  gradual  development.  Thus  the  disciples  must 
at  first  have  contemplated  the  whole  outward  system  of  Judaism  from 
this  point  of  view  and  in  this  relation  to  the  approaching  kingdom  of 
Christ.  Its  whole  cultus  appeared  to  them  as  something  which  must 
continue  to  exist,  till  all  things  should  become  new.  But  here  also,  as 
the  renewing  effect  of  Christianity  was  to  proceed  from  within,  the  true 
light  had  not  yet  risen  upon  them.  Hence  the  establishment  of  a  distinct 
mode  of  worship  was  far  from  entering  their  thoughts,  although  new 
ideas  respecting  the  essence  of  true  worship  arose  in  their  minds  from 
the  light  of  faith  in  the  Redeemer ;  they  took  part  in  the  temple  worship 
with  as  much  interest  as  any  devout  Jew.  They  believed,  however, 
that  a  sifting  would  take  place  among  the  members  of  the  Theocracy, 
and  that  the  better  part  would,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  be  incorporated  with  the  Christian  community. 

But  as  the  believers,  in  opposition  to  the  mass  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
who  remained  hardened  in  their  unbelief,  now  formed  a  community 
internally  bound  together  by  the  one  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  and 
by  the  consciousness  of  the  higher  life  received  from  him,  it  was  neces- 
sary that  this  internal  union  should  assume  a  certain  external  form.  And 
there  already  existed  among  the  Jews  a  model  for  such  a  smaller  com- 
munity within  the  great  theocratic  national  church,  which,  besides  the 
general  temple  worship,  had  its  special  means  of  edification,  viz. :  the 
Synagogues.  The  kind  of  edification  supplied  by  the  Synagogues — ex- 
positions by  individuals  who  had  applied  themselves  to  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament,  united  prayer,  and  consideration  of  the  divine  word — ap- 
pealing to  the  spiritual  consciousness,  and  demanding  the  spiritual  par- 
ticipation of  all,  accorded  also  with  the  nature  of  the  new  Christian  wor- 
ship. This  form  of  social  organization,  therefore,  as  it  was  copied  in 
all  the  religious  communities  founded  on  Judaism,  (such  as  the  Essenes) 
was  also  adopted  to  a  certain  extent  at  the  first  formation  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

But  it  may  be  disputed,  whether  the  apostles,  to  whom  Christ  com- 
mitted the  chief  direction  of  affairs,  designed  from  the  first  that  believers 


ORIGIN    OF   CHURCH   OFFICES.  29 

should  form  a  society  exactly  on  the  model  of  the  synagogue,  and,  in 
pursuance  of  this  plan,  instituted  particular  offices  for  the  government  of 
the  church  corresponding  to  that  model — or  whether,  without  such  a 
preconceived  plan,  distinct  offices  were  appointed,  as  circumstances 
required,  in  doing  which  they  availed  themselves  of  the  model  of  the 
synagogue,  with  which  they  were  familiar. 

The  advocates  of  the  first  view  (particularly  Mosheim)  proceed  on 
the  undeniably  correct  assumption,  that  the  existence  of  certain  presi- 
dents at  the  head  of  the  Christian  societies,  under  the  name  of  Elders, 
(jTpeoftvrepoi),  must  be  presupposed  though  their  appointment  is  not 
expressly  mentioned,  as  appears  from  Acts  xi.  30.  The  question  arises, 
therefore,  whether  far  earlier  traces  cannot  be  found  of  the  existence  of 
such  Presbyters  ?  The  appointment  of  deacons  is  indeed  first  mentioned 
as  designed  to  meet  a  special  emergency,  Acts  vi.  But  even  here  it  might 
be  supposed  that  their  office  was  already  in  existence.  It  might  be  said 
that  the  apostles,  in  order  not  to  be  called  off  from  the  more  weighty 
duties  of  their  office,  appointed  from  the  beginning  such  almoners ;  but 
as  these  officers  hitherto  had  been  chosen  only  from  the  native  Jewish 
Christians  of  Palestine,  the  Christians  of  Jewish  descent,  who  came 
from  other  parts  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  to  whom  the  Greek  was 
almost  as  much  their  mother  tongue  as  the  Aramaic — the  Hellenists  as 
they  were  termed, — believed  that  they  were  unjustly  treated.  On  their 
remonstrance,  deacons  of  Hellenistic  descent  were  especially  appointed 
for  them,  as  appears  by  their  Greek  names.  As  the  apostles  declared 
that  they  were  unwilling  to  be  distracted  in  their  purely  spiritual  em- 
ployment of  prayer  and  preaching  the  word,  by  the  distribution  of 
money,  it  might  be  inferred  that  even  befoi'e  this  time,  they  had  not 
engaged  in  such  business,  but  had  transferred  it  to  other  persons  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose.  As  still  earlier,  in  Acts  v.,  we  find  men- 
tion made  of  persons  under  the  title  of  "  young  men,"  ve&repoi,  veavtonoi, 
who  considered  such  an  employment  as  carrying  a  corpse  out  of  the 
Christian  assemblies  for  burial  as  belonging  to  their  office,  so  these  might 
be  supposed  to  be  no  other  than  deacons.  And  as  the  title  of  younger 
stands  in  contrast  with  that  of  elders  in  the  church,  the  existence  of  ser- 
vants of  the  church  (diditovoi),  and  of  ruling  elders  (npeoj3 vrepoi),  might 
seem  to  be  equally  pointed  out. 

But  though  this  supposition  has  so  much  plausibility,  yet  the  evidence 
for  it,  on  closer  examination,  appears  by  no  means  conclusive.  It  is  far 
from  clear  that  in  the  last  quoted  passage  of  the  Acts,  the  narrative 
alludes  to  persons  holding  a  distinct  office  in  the  church  j*  it  may  very 

*  Even  after  what  has  been  urged  by  Meyer  and  Olshausen,  in  their  Commentaries 
on  the  Acts,  against  this  view,  I  cannot  give  it  up.  In  accordance  with  the  relation  in 
which,  anciently,  and  especially  among  the  Jews,  the  young  stood  to  their  elders,  it  would 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  young  men  in  an  assembly  would  be  ready  to  per- 
form any  service  which  might  be  required.  I  do  not  see  why  (as  Olshausen  maintains, 
vol  3,  p.  235)  on  this  supposition,  any  other  term  than  veurepoi  should  have  been  used — 
rather  we  should  aay,  if  Luke  had  wished  to  designate  appointed  servants  of  the  church, 


30  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN  PALESTINE. 

naturally  be  understood  of  the  younger  members  who  were  fitted  for 
such  manual  employment,  without  any  other  eligibility  than  the  fact  of 
their  age  and  bodily  strength.  And,  therefore,  we  are  not  to  suppose 
that  a  contrast  is  intended  between  the  servants  and  ruling  elders  of  the 
church,  but  simply  between  the  younger  and  older  members.  As  to  the 
Greek  names  of  the  seven  deacons,  it  cannot  be  inferred  with  certainty 
from  this  circumstance  that  they  all  belonged  to  the  Hellenists,  for  it  is 
well  known  that  the  Jews  often  bore  double  names,  one  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic,  and  the  other  Hellenistic.  Still  it  is  possible,  since  the  com- 
plaints of  the  partial  distribution  of  alms  came  from  the  Hellenistic  part 
of  the  church,  that,  in  order  to  infnse  confidence  and  satisfaction,  only 
Hellenists  were  chosen  on  this  occasion.  Or,  it  might  be  supposedf 
that  the  additions  to  the  church '  had  been  chiefly  from  the  Hellen- 
ists, and  that  their  influence  predominated  in  fixing  the  choice  on 
men  of  their  own  number.  But  from  all  we  know  of  the  composition 
of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  this  seems  in  no  way  probable.  And 
the  complaint  of  the  Hellenists  that  their  widows  had  been  neglected 
is  rather  adverse  than  favorable  to  such  a  view.  But  if  these  deacons 
were  appointed  only  for  the  Hellenists,  it  would  have  been  most  nat- 
ural to  entrust  their  election  to  the  Hellenistic  part  alone,  and  not  to 
the  whole  church. 

Hence  we  are  disposed  to  believe,  that  the  church  was  at  first  com- 
posed entirely  of  members  standing  on  an  equality  with  one  another,  and 
that  the  apostles  alone  held  a  higher  rank  and  exercised  a  directing 
influence  over  the  whole,  according  to  the  original  position  in  which 
Christ  had  placed  them  in  relation  to  other  believers  ;  so  that  the  whole 
arrangement  and  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  church  proceeded 
from  them,  and  they  were  led  only  by  particular  circumstances  to  ap- 
jjoint  other  church  officers.  Deacons  were  first  appointed,  and  their 
office  is,  therefore,  the  oldest  of  all  church  offices. 

As  in  the  government  of  the  church  in  general  the  apostles  at  first 
were  the  sole  directors,  so  all  the  contributions  towards  the  common  fund 
were  deposited  with  them  (Acts  v.  2),  and  its  distribution  also,  according 
to  the  wants  of  individuals,  was  altogether  in  their  hands.  From  Acts 
vi.  2,  it  cannot  be  positively  inferred,  that  the  apostles  had  not  hitherto 
been  occupied  with  this  secular  concern.  That  passage  may  be  under- 
lie would  not  have  used  this  indefinite  appellation ;  nor  can  I  feel  the  force  of  Olshausen's 
objection,  that  in  case  of  its  use,  Acts  v.  6,  10,  the  article  would  not  have  been  prefixed,  but 
the  pronoun  rivec,  "  certain."  Luke  intended  to  mark,  no  doubt,  a  particular  class  of  persons, 
the  younger  contradistinguished  from  the  elder,  without  determining  whether  all  or  only 
some  lent  their  assistance.  Just  as  we  in  German  (or  in  English)  in  such  a  case,  should 
say :  The  young  men  in  the  assembly  did  this.  But  Olshausen  is  so  far  right,  that  if  these 
are  assumed  to  be  regularly  appointed  servants  of  the  church,  they  cannot  be  considered 
as  the  forerunners  of  the  deacons  chosen  at  a  later  period,  for  manifestly  these  veurepoi 
held  a  far  lower  place.  I  am  glad  to  find  an  acute  advocate  of  the  view  I  have  taken  in 
Rothe;  see  his  work  on  the  Commencement  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  162. 

f  As  it  is  by  Baur  in  his  work  on  Paul,  p.  44. 


APPOINTMENT   OF   DEACONS.  31 

stood  to  intimate  that  they  had  hitherto  attended  to  this  business  without 
being  distracted  in  their  calling  as  preachers  of  the  Word,  inasmuch  as 
the  confidence  universally  reposed  in  them,  and  the  unity  pervading  the 
church,  had  lightened  the  labor  ;  but  it  assumed  a  very  different  aspect 
when  a  conflict  of  distinct  interests  arose  between  the  members.  Mean- 
while, the  number  of  the  believers  increased  so  greatly,  that  it  is  proba- 
ble the  apostles  could  not  manage  the  distribution  alone ;  but  consigned 
a  part  of  the  business  sometimes  to  one,  sometimes  to  another,  who 
either  offered  themselves  for  the  purpose,  or  had  shown  themselves  to 
be  wTorthy  of  such  confidence.  But  this  department  of  labor  had  not. 
yet  received  any  regular  form. 

But  as  the  visible  church  received  into  its  bosom  various  elements, 
the  opposition  existing  in  these  elements  gradually  became  apparent,  and 
threatened  to  destroy  the  Christian  unity,  until  by  the  might  of  the 
Christian  spirit  this  opposition  was  counterbalanced,  and  a  higher  unity 
developed.  The  strongest  opposition  existing  in  the  church  at  this  time 
was  that  between  the  Palestinian  or  purely  Jewish,  and  the  Hellenistic, 
or  mixed  Grecian  and  Jewish  elements.  And  though  the  power  of 
Christian  love  at  first  so  fused  together  the  dispositions  of  the  two 
parties,  that  the  contrariety  seemed  lost,  yet  the  original, difference  soon 
made  its  appearance.  It  showed  itself  in  this  respect,  that  the  Hellenists, 
dissatisfied  with  the  mode  of  distributing  the  alms,  were  mistrustful  of 
the  others,  and  believed  that  they  had  cause  to  complain  that  their  own 
poor  widows  were  not  taken  such  good  care  of  in  the  daily  distribution,* 
as  the  widows  of  the  Palestinian  Jews ;  whether  the  fact  was,  that  the 
apostles  had  hitherto  committed  this  business  to  Palestinian  Jews,  and 
these  had  either  justly  or  unjustly  incurred  the  suspicion  of  partiality,  or 
whether  the  want  of  a  regular  plan  for  this  business  had  occasioned  much 
irregularity  and  neglect  of  individuals,!  or  whether  the  complaint  was 
grounded  more  in  the  natural  mistrust  of  the  Hellenists  than  in  a  real 
grievance,  must  be  left  undetermined  from  the  want  of  more  exact 
information. \     These     complaints,    however,  induced   the   apostles  to 

*  Neither  from  the  expression  "  ministration,"  diaKovia,  vi.  1,  nor  from  the  phrase  "  to 
serve  tables,"  dianovelv  rpair^aic,  can  it  be  inferred  with  certainty  that  the  apostles  alluded 
only  to  the  distribution  of  food  among  the  poor  widows.  "We  may  be  allowed  to  suppose 
that  this  was  only  one  of  the  tables  of  the  service  they  performed,  and  that  it  is  mentioned 
to  mark  more  pointedly  the  distinction  between  the  oversight  of  spiritual,  and  that  of  secular 
concerns. 

f  As  Rothe  thinks  in  the  work  just  alluded  to,  (Die  Anfange  der  Christlichen  Kirche,) 
p.  164. 

%  Mosheim,  the  author  of  the  genuine  pragmatically  combining  method  of  inquiry  in 
Church  History,  infers  here  more  than  can  be  actually  proved.  [The  method  alluded  to  is 
that  which  connects  events  together  by  tracing  their  causes  and  effects  in  the  relations, 
characters  and  motives  of  men,  and  in  the  spirit  and  circumstances  of  the  times.  It  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  that  "a  priori  combination"  and  "subjective  pragmatism,"  which 
arbitrarily  substitute  a  subjective  idea  for  an  objective  reality  as  determined  by  universal 
law,  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  Divine  Revelation ;  and  which,  in  order  to  combine 
events  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  them  conform  to  a  preconceived  plan,  find  adequate 
cause  and  effect  in  what  is  purely  insignificant  and  accidental — Ed.' 


32  THE   CHRISTIAN  CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

establish  a  regular  plan  for  conducting  this  business,  and  since  they 
could  not  themselves  combine  the  strict  oversight  necessary  for  the 
satisfaction  of  each  one's  wants,*  with  a  proper  attention  to  the 
principal  object  of  their  calling,  they  thought  it  best  to  institute 
a  particular  office  for  the  purpose,  the  first  regular  one  for  adminis- 
tering the  concerns  of  the  church.  Accordingly,  they  required  the 
church  to  entrust  this  business  to  persons  who  enjoyed  the  general  con- 
fidence, and  were  fitted  for  the  office,  animated  by  Christian  zeal,  and 
armed  with  Christian  prudence.f  Seven  such  individuals  were  chosen ; 
the  number  being  accidentally  fixed  upon  as  a  common  one,  or  being 
adapted  to  seven  sections  of  the  church. 

Thus  this  office  originated  in  the  immediate  wants  of  the  primitive 
church,  and  its  special  mode  of  operation  was  marked  out  by  the  pecu- 
liar situation  of  this  first  union  of  believers,  which  was  in  some  points 
dissimilar  to  that  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  or  of  later  churches.  As  it 
was  called  for  by  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  it  certainly  was  not 
intended  to  be  perfectly  correspondent  to  an  office  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue, and  can  by  no  means  be  considered  parallel  to  that  of  a  common 
servant  of  the  synagogue,  (Luke  iv.  20,)  termed  -jm,  tftsw,  isa*  rnVio.  J 
It  was  of  higher  importance,  for  at  first  it  was  the  only  one  in  the  church 
besides  the  apostolic,  and  required  special  ability  in  the  management  of 
men's  dispositions,  which  might  be  employed  in  services  of  a  higher  kind, 
and  which  also  without  doubt  belonged  to  the  general  idea  of  "  wisdom,' 
cofyla.  This  office,  having  its  origin  in  the  peculiar  relations  of  the  first 
church,  was,  therefore,  not  altogether  identical  with  that  which  at  a  later 
period  bore  the  same  name,§  but  which  was  subordinate  to  the  office  of 
presbyters ;  it  took  at  that  time  a  higher  place  than  the  office  which  it 
afterward  made  room  for.  And  yet  it  would  be  wrong  to  deny  that  the 
later  church  office  of  this  name  developed  itself  from  the  first,  and  might 
be  traced  back  to  it.||  Although,  as  is  usual  in  such  affairs,  when  the 
ecclesiastical  system  became  more  complex,  many  changes  took  place  in 
the  office  of  deacons,  as,  for  example,  the  management  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  alms,  which  pertained  originally  to  the  office  of  deacons  alone, 
became  afterwards  subject  to  the  influence  of  the  presbyters  who  as- 
sumed the  whole  direction  of  church  affairs,!"  and  although  many  other 

*  That  they  had  been  required  to  undertake  the  business  alone,  instead  of  entrusting 
it  to  deputies,  cannot  be  proved  from  the  language  in  the  Acts. 

\  Acts  vi.  3.  The  word  nvevpa,  "  spirit,"  (which  is  the  true  reading,  uylov,  "  holy,"  and 
Kvptov,  "of  the  Lord,"  seeming  to  be  only  glosses)  denotes  that  inspiration  for  the  cause 
of  thes  gospel  which  is  requisite  for  every  kind  of  exertion  for  the  kingdom  of  God;  aotyia 
signifies  that  quality  which  is  essential  for  this  office  in  particular,  and  imports  in  the 
New  Testament  both  wisdom  and  prudence. 

\  See  Rothe's  admirable  Remarks,  p.  166. 

§  As  Chrysostom  observes  in  his  fourteenth  Homily  on  the  Acts,  §  3. 

[|  As  the  Second  Trullanian  Council,  c.  16,  which  was  occasioned  by  a  special  object, 
that  the  number  of  deacons  for  large  towns  might  not  be  limited  to  seven. 

^  From  Acts  xi.  30,  nothing  more  is  to  be  inferred,  than  that  when  presbyters  were 


THE   OFFICE   OF   PRESBYTERS.  83 

secular  employments  were  afterwards  added  to  this  original  one,  yet  the 
fundamental  principle  as  well  as  the  name  of  the  office  remained.*  It 
later  times,  we  still  find  traces  of  the  distribution  of  alms  being  consid- 
ered as  the  peculiar  employment  of  deacons.f 

Here,  as  in  many  other  instances  in  the  history  of  the  church,  human 
weakness  and  imperfection  subserved  the  divine  wisdom,  and  promoted 
the  interests  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  for  by  this  appointment  of  deacons 
for  the  Hellenistic  part  of  the  church,  distinguished  men  of  Hellenistic 
descent  and  education  were  brought  into  the  public  service  of  the  church, 
and  the  Hellenists,  by  their  freer  mental  culture,  were  in  many  respeots 
better  qualified  rightly  to  understand  and  to  publish  the  gospel  as  the 
foundation  of  a  method  of  salvation  independent  of  Judaism,  and  intended 
for  all  men  equally  without  distinction.  The  important  consequences 
resulting  from  this  event  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  history. 

The  institution  of  the  office  of  presbyters  was  probably  similar  in  its 
origin  to  that  of  deacons.  As  the  church  was  continually  increasing 
in  size,  the  details  of  management  also  multiplied;  the  guidance  of 
all  its  affairs  by  the  apostles  could  no  longer  be  conveniently  combined 
with  the  exercise  of  their  peculiar  apostolic  functions ;  they  also  wished, 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  not  to  govern  alone,  but 
preferred  that  the  body  of  believers  should  govern  themselves  under 
their  guidance ;  thus  they  divided  the  government  of  the  church,  which 
hitherto  they  had  exercised  alone,  with  tried  men,  who  formed  a  pre- 
siding council  of  elders,  similar  to  that  which  was  known  in  the  Jewish 
synagogues  under  the  title  of  0"1}  gt,  Trpeofivrepoi,    "elders."J     Possibly, 

appointed  for  the  general  superintendence  of  the  church,  the  contributions  intended  for  the 
church  were  handed  over  to  them,  as  formerly  to  the  apostles,  when  they  held  the  exclu- 
sive management  of  affairs.  It  may  be  fairly  supposed  that  the  presbyters  entrusted  each 
of  the  deacons  with  a  sum  out  of  the  common  fund  for  distribution  in  his  own  sphere  of 
operation. 

*  I  find  no  reason  (with  Rothe,  p.  166)  to  doubt  this;  for  the  name  was  well  adapted 
to  denote  their  particular  employment,  and  to  distinguish  them  from  persons  acting  in  a 
more  subordinate  capacity,  as  "  ministers,"  vnTipsraL.  Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  this  that 
in  Acts  xxi.  8  they  are  merely  called  The  Seven,  for  as  the  name  of  deacon  was  then  the 
usual  appellation  of  a  certain  class  of  officers  in  the  church,  Luke  uses  this  expression  to 
listinguish  them  from  others  of  the  same  name,  just  as  The  Twelve  denoted  the  apostles. 

f  Hence,  at  the  appointment  of  deacons,  it  was  required  that  they  should  "  not  be 
greedy  of  filthy  lucre,"  1  Tim.  iii.  8.  Origen,  on  Matt.  t.  xvi.  §  22,  speaks  of  "  the  deacons 
managing  the  affairs  of  the  church,"  ol  Simovoi  SioiKoiivrec  rd.  rrjc  kKKlvalac  xPWaTa  i  and 
Cyprian,  Ep.  55,  says,  of  the  deacon  Felicissimus,  that  he  was  "  a  defrauder  of  the  money 
committed  to  him,  "pecuniae  commissce  sibi  fraudator.  Even  in  the  apostolic  age,  the  deacon's 
office  appears  to  have  extended  to  many  other  outward  employments,  and  most  probably 
the  word  "helps,"  uvriTiTJipeic,  denotes  the  servioeableness  of  their  office.  1  Cor.  xii.  28. 
%  Baur  has  lately  maintained  that  the  general  government  of  the  affairs  of  the  church 
did  not  enter  originally  and  essentially  into  the  idea  of  "elders."  npeopvrepoi,  but  that 
originally  every  TxpeafivTtpoc  presided  over  a  small,  distinct,  Christian  society.  From  this, 
one  consequence  would  follow,  which  Baur  also  deduces  from  it,  that  not  a  republican, 
but  a  monarchical  element  entered  originally  into  the  constitution  of  the  church,  a  position 
which  would  have  most  important  bearings  in  the  history  of  the  constitution  of  the  Chria- 


34  THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    IX   PALESTINE. 

as  the  formal  appointment  of  deacons  arose  from  a  specific  outward  occa- 
sion,  a  similar,  though  to  us  unknown,  event  occasioned  that  of  presby- 
ters. They  were  originally  chosen  as  in  the  synagogue,  not  so  much  for 
the  instruction  and  edification  of  the  church,  as  for  taking  the  lead  in  its 
general  government. 

But  as  to  the  provision  made  in  the  primitive  church  for  religious 
instruction  and  edification,  we  have  no  precise  information.  If  we  are 
justified  in  assuming  that  the  course  adopted  in  the  assemblies  of  Gentile 
Christians,* — one  proceeding  from  the  enlightened  spirit  and  nature  of 
Christianity,  which  was  not  confined  to  one  station  of  life,  or  to  one  form 
of 'mental  cultivation — was  also  the  original  one,  we  might  from  that 
conclude  that,  from  the  first,  any  one  who  had  the  ability  and  an  inward 
call  to  utter  his  thoughts  on  Christian  topics  in  a  public  assembly,  was 
permitted  to  speak  for  the  general  improvement  and  edification.f     But 

tian  church.  But  against  this  assertion  we  have  many  things  to  urge.  Since  the  appoint- 
ment of  presbyters  in  the  Christian  churches  entirely  corresponded  with  that  of  presbyters 
in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  at  least  in  their  original  constitution,  so  we  may  conclude,  that 
if  a  plurality  of  elders  stood  at  the  bead  of  the  synagogue,  the  same  was  the  case  with  the 
first  Christian  church.  But  since  now  the  synagogue,  according  to  the  ancient  Jewish 
constitution,  was  organized  on  the  plan  of  the  great  Sanhedrim  at  Jerusalem,  we  might 
expect  that  a  whole  college  of  elders  would  have  the  direction  of  the  synagogues,  as  such 
a  college  of  elders  was  really  at  the  head  of  the  Jews  in  a  city.  Luke  vii.  3.  Only 
those  passages  in  which  one  is  distinguished  by  the  title  of  "  Ruler  of  the  synagogue,"  6 
apxicruvdyoijog,  Luke  viii.  41,  49 ;  xiii.  14,  could  favor  the  opinion  that  one,  as  no;2n  cso, 
stood  at  the  head  of  the  Jewish  congregation,  and  that  the  form  of  government  was 
rather  monarchical.  But  admitting  this,  still  the  supposition  of  a  college  of  presbyters, 
presiding  over  the  synagogue,  would  not  be  invalidated,  since  we  also  meet  with  a  plu- 
rality of  diixiavvdyioyoi^npeofivTepoi,  Acts  xiii.  15;  xviii.  8,18.  Yet  we  must  make 
the  qualification  that  in  smaller  places  an  individual,  as  in  larger  towns  a  plurality,  stood 
at  the  head  of  the  synagogue.  But  it  adjusts  the  matter,  and  is  most  pobable,  that 
although  all  presbyters  were  called  dpxiavvdyuyot.,  yet  one  who  acted  as  president  was 
distinguished  by  the  title  of  dpxtavvdyuyog,  as  primus  inter  pares.  In  evidence  of  this, 
compare  the  first  passage  quoted  from  Luke  with  Mark  v.  22.  This  is  important  in  refer- 
ence to  the  later  relation  of  bishops  to  presbyters.  Analogy  to  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
therefore,  leads  us  to  conclude,  that  at  the  head  of  the  first  church  at  Jerusalem  a  general 
diliberative  college  was  placed  from  the  beginning;  an  opinion  favored  also  by  a  com- 
parison with  the  college  of  apostles ;  and  in  the  Acts  a  plurality  of  presbyters  always 
actually  appears  next  in  rank  to  the  apostles,  as  representatives  of  the  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem. If  any  one  is  disposed  to  maintain  that  each  of  these  presbyters  presided  over  a 
smaller  part  of  the  church  at  its  special  meetings,  still  it  must  be  thereby  established  that, 
notwithstanding  these  divided  meetings,  the  church  formed  a  whole,  over  which  this  de- 
liberative college  of  presbyters  presided,  and  therefore  the  form  of  government  was  still 
republican.  But  even  if  it  be  probable  that  the  whole  church,  which  could  not  meet  in 
one  place,  divided  itself  into  several  companies,  still  the  assumption,  that  from  the  begin- 
ning the  number  of  presbyters  was  equal  to  the  number  of  places  of  assembling  and  to 
these  subdivisions  of  the  collective  body  of  believers,  is  entirely  groundless,  and  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable. 

*  See  farther  on. 

f  That  in  the  Jewish-Christian  churches,  public  speaking  in  their  assemblies  was  not 
confined  to  certain  authorized  persons,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  James,  in  addressing 
believers  of  that  class  who  were  too  apt  to  substitute  talking  for  practising,   censured 


THE    OFFICE    OF   PRESBYTERS.  35 

the  first  church  differed  from  the  churches  subsequently  formed  among 
the  Gentiles  in  one  important  respect,  that  in  the  latter  there  were  no 
teachers  of  that  degree  of  illumination,  and  possessing  claim  to  that 
respect  to  which  the  apostles  had  a  right,  from  the  position  in  which 
Christ  himself  had  placed  them.  Meanwhile,  though  the  apostles  princi- 
pally attended  to  the  advancement  of  Christian  knowledge,  and,  as 
teachers,  possessed  a  preponderating  and  distinguished  influence,  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  they  monopolized  the  right' of  instructing  the  church. 
In  proportion  as  they  were  influenced  by  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  it  must 
have  been  their  aim  to  lead  believers  by  their  teaching  to  that  spiritual 
maturity,  which  would  enable  them  to  contribute  (by  virtue  of  the 
divine  life  communicated  to  all  by  the  Holy  Spirit)  to  their  mutual 
awakening,  instruction,  and  improvement.  Viewing  the  occurrences  of 
the  day  of  Pentecost  as  an  illustration  of  the  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
in  the  new  dispensation,  we  may  conclude  that,  on  subsequent  occasions, 
the  spiritual  ardor  which  impelled  believers  to  testify  of  the  divine  life, 
was  not  confined  to  the  apostles. 

"We  find  that  individuals  came  forward,  who  had  already  devoted 
themselves  to  the  study  and  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to 
meditation  on  divine  things ;  and  when,  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  had  become  familiar  with  the  nature  of  the  gospel,  they 
could  with  comparative  ease  develop  and  apply  its  truths  in  public  ad- 
dresses. They  received  the  gift  for  which  there  was  already  an  adapta- 
tion in  their  minds — the  "gift  of  teaching,"  x&pio\ia  didaanaXiag,  and,  in 
consequence  of  it  were,  next  to  the  apostles,  fitted  to  give  public  instruc- 
tion. Besides  that  connected  intellectual  development  of  truth,  there 
were  also  addresses,  which  proceeded  not  so  much  from  an  aptness  of 
the  understanding  improved  by  exercise,  and  acting  with  a  certain  uni- 
formity of  operation,  as  from  an  instantaneous,  immediate,  inward 
awakening  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  which  a  divine  afflatus 
was  felt  both  by  the  speaker  and  hearers :  to  this  class  belonged  the 
"  prophecies,"  the  "  gift  of  prophecy,"  npocprjreiai,  %apio\ia  npocprj-eiag. 
To  the  prophets  also  were  ascribed  the  exhortations,  napaicfajoeig, 
which  struck  with  instantaneous  force  the  minds  of  the  hearers.*  The 
"  teachers,"  diddoKaXoL,  might  also  possess  the  gift  of  "  prophecy,"  irpo- 
(pqreia^  but  not  all  who  uttered  particular  instantaneous  exhortations  as 
prophets  in  the  church  were  capable  of  holding  the  office  of  teachers.f 
We  have  no  precise  information  concerning  the  relation  of  the  teach- 

them,  because  so  many,  without  an  inward  call,  prompted  by  self-conceit,  put  themselves 
forward  in  their  assemblies  as  teachers. 

*  The  Levite  Joses,  who  distinguished  himself  by  his  powerful  addresses  in  the  church, 
was  reckoned  among  the  prophets,  and  hence  was  called  by  the  apostles  J"»K  133  IB,  Bap* 
vuftac,  and  this  is  translated  in  the  Acts  (iv.  36)  vld$  naoanXrioeus  =  vlb(  ^po<fn]Teia(, 
"  son  of  consolation,  exhortation  =-  son  of  prophecy." 

\  In  Acts  xix.  6,  as  a  manifestation  of  the  spiritual  gifts  that  followed  conversion, 
"  prophesying"  is  put  next  to  "  speaking  with  tongues." 


36  THE   CHRISTIE   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

ers  to  the  presbyters  in  the  primitive  church,  whether,  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  presbyters,  care  was  taken  that  only  those  who  were 
furnished  with  the  gift  of  teaching  should  be  admitted  into  the  col- 
lege of  presbyters.  However,  in  all  cases,  the  oversight  of  the  pro- 
pagation of  the  Christian  faith — of  the  administration  of  teaching  and 
of  devotional  exercises  in  the  social  meetings  of  believers,  belonged  to 
that  general  superintendence  of  the  church  which  was  entrusted  to  them; 
as  in  the  Jewish  synagogues,  although  it  was  not  the  special  and  exclusive 
office  of  the  elders  to  give  public  exhortations,  yet  they  exercised  an 
inspection  over  those  who  spoke  in  their  assemblies.  Acts  xiii.  15.  In 
an  epistle  written  towards  the  end  of  the  apostolic  era  to  an  early  church 
composed  of  Christians  of  Jewish  descent  in  Palestine,  (the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  xiii.  7,  17,)  it  is  presupposed  that  the  rulers  of  the  church 
had  from  the  first  provided  for  the  delivery  of  divine  truth,  and  watched 
over  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  church,  and  therefore  had  the  care  of 
souls.* 

As  concerns  generally  the  development  of  Christianity  among  the  Jews, 
this  is  the  peculiar  sign  of  its  progress  :  the  gradual  transition  out  of 
Judaism  into  Christianity  as  a  new,  independent  creation  ;  Christianity 
presenting  itself  as  the  crowning  point  of  Judaism  in  the  completeness 
given  to  it  by  the  Messiah — the  spiritualization  and  transfiguration  of 
Judaism  ;  the  new,  perfect  law  given  by  the  Messiah  coming  as  the  ful- 
filment of  the  old,  by  the  new  spirit  of  the  higher  life  imparted  by 
the  Messiah  gradually  developing  itself  in  the  oJd  religious  forms,  to 
which  it  gave  a  real  vitality.  It  is  this  conception  of  Christianity  which 
appears  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.f  First  of  all,  Peter  comes  before 
us,  and  then,  after  he  had  passed  over  the  limits  of  the  old  national 
Theocracy  to  publish  the  gospel  among  the  heathen,  James  appears  as 
the  representative  of  this  first  stage  of  development  in  its  most  perfect 
form.J  s 

The  transition  from  Judaism  to  Christianity  in  general  developed 
itself  gradually,  beginning  with  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  promised  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  hence  there  were  formed 
many  turbid  mixtures  of  the  Jewish  religious  spirit  with  Christianity,  in 
which  the  Jewish  element  predominated,  and  the  Christian  principle  was 
depressed  and  hindered  from  distinctly  unfolding  itself.  There  were 
many  with  whom  faith  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  was  added  to  their 
former  religious  views,  only  as  an  insulated,  outward  fact,  without  de- 
veloping a  new  principle  in  their  inward  life  and  disposition — baptized 
Jews  who  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  expected  his  speedy 
return  for  the  establishment  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  in  a  temporal 
form,  as  they  were  wont  to  represent  it  to  themselves  from  their  carnal, 

°  Rothe,  p.  241,  has  justly  commented  on  the  significance  of  these  passages. 
f  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  223,  seq. 

\  See,  farther  on,  the  characteristics  of  James,  and  the  development  of  the  various  types 
of  doctrine. 


TRANSITION    FROM   JUDAISM  TO   CHRISTIANITY.  37 

Jewish  stand-point ;  they  received  new  precepts  from  Hhn  as  so  many- 
positive  commands,  without  rightly  understanding  their  sense  and  spirit, 
and  were  little  distinguished  in  their  lives  from  the  common  Jews. 
That  Jesus  faithfully  observed  the  form  of  the  Jewish  law,  was  as- 
sumed by  them  as  a  proof  that  that  form  would  always  retain  its  value. 
They  clung  to  the  letter,  the  spirit  was  always  a  mystery ;  they  could 
not  understand  in  what  sense  he  declared  that  he  came  not  to  destroy 
the  law  but  to  fulfil  it.  They  adhered  to  not'  destroying  it  according  to 
the  letter,  without  understanding  what  was  meant  according  to  the  spirit, 
since  what  was  meant  by  fulfilling  it  was  equally  unknown  to  them. 
Such  persons  would  easily  fall  away  from  the  faith  which  had  never  been 
in  them  a  truly  living  one,  when  they  found  that  their  carnal  expecta- 
tions were  not  fulfilled,  as  is  implied  in  the  language  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  As  the  common  Jewish  spirit  manifested  itself  as  a  one-sided 
attachment  to  externals  in  religion,  a  cleaving  to  the  letter  and  outward 
forms  without  any  development  and  appropriation  of  the  spirit,  a  pre- 
ference for  the  shell  without  the  kernel ;  so  it  appeared  in  the  Jews  as 
opposed  to  the  reception  of  the  gospel  and  to  the  renovation  of  the 
heart  by  it,  as  an  overvaluation  of  the  outward  observance  of  the  law 
whether  in  ceremonies  or  in  a  certain  outward  propriety,  and  as  an  undue 
estimation  of  a  merely  historical  faith,  something  external  to  the  soul, 
consisting  only  in  outward  profession,  either  of  faith  in  one  God  as  crea- 
tor and  governor,  or  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  as  if  the  essence  of  religion 
were  placed  in  either  one  or  the  other,  or  as  if  a  righteousness  before 
God  could  be  thereby  obtained  ;  it  was  the  stand-point  of  a  predomin- 
ating outwardness  of  religion  and  religious  life.  The  genius  of  the  gospel 
had  therefore  to  present  itself  in  opposition  to  this  two-fold  species  of 
religious  externality,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel.  At  first  it  was  the 
element  of  Pharisaic  Judaism,  which  mingled  itself  with,  and  disturbed 
the  pure  Christian  truth  ;  at  a  later  period  Christianity  aroused  the  at- 
tention of  those  mystical  or  theosophic  tendencies  which,  in  opposition 
to  Pharisaism  cleaving  rigidly  to  the  letter,  and  to  a  carnal  Judaism  had 
developed  themselves  partly,  and  more  immediately  as  a  reaction  out  of 
the  inward  religious  element  and  spirit  of  Judaism,  partly  under  the  in- 
fluence of  Oriental  and  Grecian  mental  tendencies,  by  which  the  unbend- 
ing and  rugged  Judaism  was  softened  and  made  more  flexible,  though 
to  the  injury  of  its  original  theistic  character;  and  from  this  quarter 
other  erroneous  mixtures  with  Christianity  proceeded,  which  cramped 
and  depressed  the  pure  development  of  the  Word  and  Spirit. 

We  shall  now  pass  on  from  the  first  internal  development  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  among  the  Jews  to  its  outward  fortunes. 


38  THE  CHKISTIAN   CHURCH  IN  PALESTINE. 


CHAPTEE  III. 

THE  OUTWARD  CONDITION  OF  THE   PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  :   ITS   PERSECUTIONS 
AND  THEIR    CONSEQUENCES. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  Pharisees,  though  they  had  taken  the  lead 
in  the  condemnation  of  Christ,  were  eager,  after  that  event,  to  persecute 
his. followers.  They  looked  on  the  illiterate  Galileans  as  worthy  of  no 
further  attention,  especially  since  they  strictly  observed  the  ceremonial 
law,  and  at  first  abstained  from  controverting  the  peculiar  tenets  of  their 
party ;  they  allowed  them  to  remain  undisturbed,  like  some  other  sects 
by  whom  their  own  interests  were  not  affected.  But  instead  of  the 
Pharisees,  the  Sadducees  came  forward  as  persecutors  of  the  Gospel 
which  was  spreading  in  every  direction  with  unrestrained  power.  The 
earnestness  and  zeal  with  which  the  disciples  testified  of  the  Risen  Sav- 
iour, and  of  the  hope  of  a  future  Resurrection  founded  on  him,  must  have 
rendered  them  hateful  to  this  sect.  A  predominant  negative  tendency 
will  always  be  suspicious  and  mistrustful  of  popular  movements  which 
proceed  from  a  positive  religious  interest,  and  from  aspirations  relating 
to  the  future  world  ;  and  from  suspicion,  it  is  easily  roused  to  active 
hostility.  And  the  Sadducees  were  noted  for  their  harshness  and  inhu- 
manity. Since  they  could  not  venture  to  oppugn  directly  and  openly  the 
doctrines  of  the  Pharisees,  they  must  have  welcomed  the  opportunity  of 
attacking,  under  another  pretext,  a  sect  zealous  for  those  doctrines,  and 
rapidly  spreading,  and  of  bringing  the  authority  of  the  Sanhedrim  to 
bear  against  them.  But  what  served  to  render  the  Christians  hateful  to 
the  Sadducees,  must  have  contributed  to  render  the  Pharisees  favorably 
disposed  towards  them.* 

Meanwhile,  the  church  was  enabled  continually  to  enlarge  itself.  An 
ever-increasing  number  were  attracted  and  won  by  that  irresistible 
spiritual  powrer  which  was  manifested  in  the  primitive  church  ;  the 
apostles  also,  by  miracles  wrought  in  the  confidence  and  power  of  faith, 
first  roused  the  attention  of  carnal  men,  and  then  made  use  of  this  im- 
pression to  bring  them  to  an  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  power  of 

*  This  is  contrary  to  the  opinion  maintained  by  Dr.  Baur,  who,  in  his  work  on  Paul,  p. 
34,  will  not  allow  any  historical  truth  in  the  account  contained  in  the  Acts,  of  the  perse- 
cutions  excited  by  the  Sadducees  against  the  Christians,  and  calls  in  question  generally 
the  truth  of  the  account  respecting  these  early  persecutions.  He  sees  in  it  nothing  but 
an  a  priori  combination.  "Since  the  discourses  of  the  disciples,"  he  thinks,  "  could  con- 
tain nothing  more  important  than  the  testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  no  more  em- 
bittered and  decided  opponents  of  it  need  be  imagined  than  the  Sadducees,  the  avowed 
deniers  of  the  doctrine  of  a  Resurrection."  We  must  here,  as  in  relation  to  other  points, 
recognise  the  objective  historical  pragmatism  which  this  kind  of  criticism  would  change 
into  a  subjective. 


HEALING    OF    THE    LAME    MAN    BY    PETER.  39 

Him  in  whose  name  such  wonders  were  performed,  and  to  hold  II im 
forth  to  them  as  the  deliverer  from  all  evil.  Peter,  especially,  possessed 
in  an  extraordinary  degree  that  gift  of  faith  which  enabled  him  to  per- 
form cures,  of  which  a  remarkable  example  is  recorded  in  the  third 
chapter  of  the  Acts. 

When  Peter  and  John,  at  one  of  the  usual  hours  of  prayer,  about 
three  in  the  afternoon,  were  going  into  the  temple,  they  found  at  one  of 
the  gates  of  the  temple  (whose  precincts,  as  afterwards  those  of  Christian 
churches,  were  a  common  resort  of  beggars)  a  man  who  had  been  lame 
from  his  birth.  While  he  was  looking  for  alms  from  them,  Peter  uttered 
the  memorable  words,  which  plainly  testified  to  the  conscious  possession  of 
a  divine  power  that  could  go  far  beyond  the  common  powers  of  man 
and  of  nature  ;  and  which,  pronounced  with  such  confidence,  carried 
the  pledge  of  their  fulfilment :  "  Silver  and  gold  have  I  none  ;  but  such 
as  I  have,  give  I  thee.  In  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  rise  up  and 
walk."  When  the  man,  who  had  been  universally  known  as  a  lame 
beggar,  was  seen  standing  with  joy  by  the  side  of  his  two  benefactors 
to  whom  he  clung  with  overflowing  gratitude,  a  crowd  full  of  curiosity 
and  astonishment  collected  around  the  apostles  as  they  wrere  leaving  the 
temple,  and  seemed  ready  to  pay  them  homage  as  persons  of  peculiar 
sanctity.  But  Peter  said  to  them,*  "  Why  do  you  look  full  of  wonder 
on  us,  as  if  we  had  done  this  by  our  own  power  and  holiness  ?  It  is 
not  our  wofk,  but  the  work  of  the  Holy  One  whom  ye  rejected  and 
delivered  up  to  the  Gentiles,  whose  death  ye  demanded,  though  a  heathen 
judge  wished  to  let  him  go,  and  felt  compelled  to  acknowledge  his  inno- 
cence." We  here  meet  with  the  charge  which  ever  since  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  Peter  had  been  used  to  bring  forward,  in  order  to  lead  the 
Jews  to  a  consciousness  of  their  guilt,  to  repentance,  and  to  faith. 
"  God  himself  has  by  subsequent  events  justified  Him  whom  ye  con- 
demned, and  proved  your  guilt.  That  God  who  was  with  our  fathers, 
and  revealed  his  presence  by  miraculous  events,  has  now  revealed  him- 
self by  the  glorification  of  Him  whom  ye  condemned.  Ye  have  put 
him  to  death,  as  God  had  predestined  in  order  to  bestow  on  us  a  divine 
life  of  everlasting  blessedness ;  but  God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  we 
are  the  eye-witnesses  of  his  resurrection.  The  believing  confidence  im- 
planted in  our  hearts  by  him,  has  effected  this  miracle  before  your  eyes." 
Peter  would  have  spoken  in  a  different  strain  to  obstinate  unbelievers. 
But  here  he  hoped  to  meet  with  minds  open  to  conviction.  He 
therefore  avoided  saying  what  would  only  exasperate  and  repel  them. 
After  he  had  said  what  tended  to  convince  them  of  their  guilt,  he  adopted 
a  milder  tone,  to  infuse  confidence  and  to  encourage  the  contrite.  He 
brought  forward  what  might  be  said  in  extenuation  of  those  who  had 
united  in  the  condemnation  of  Christ,  "  that  in  ignorance  they  had  de* 

*  Acts  3, 12  ffi, 


10  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

nied  the  Messiah,"*  and  that  as  far  as  they  and  their  rulers  had  acted  in  ig- 
norance, it  was  in  consequence  of  a  higher  necessity.  It  was  the  eternal 
counsel  of  God  that  the  Messiah  should  suffer  for  the  salvation  of  men, 
as  had  been  predicted  by  the  prophets.  But  now  is  the  time  for  you  to 
prove  that  you  have  erred  only  through  ignorance;  now  allow  yourselves 
to  be  brought  to  a  sense  of  your  unrighteousness  by  the  fact  of  which 
you  are  witnesses ;  now  repent  and  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and 
seek  through  him  that  forgiveness  of  your  sins  which  he  is  ready  to 
bestow.  Thus  only  can  you  expect  deliverance  from  all  evil,  and  full 
salvation  ;  for  he  is  now  hidden  from  your  bodily  eyes,  and,  exalted  to 
heaVen,  reveals  himself  as  invisibly  efficient  by  miracles,  such  as  those 
you  have  witnessed  ;  but  when  the  time  arrives  for  the  completion  of  all 
things,  that  great  period  to  which  all  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment point  from  the  beginning,  then  will  he  appear  again  on  earth  to 
effect  that  completion ;  for  Mosesf  and  the  prophets  have  spoken  before- 
hand of  what  is  to  be  performed  by  the  Messiah,  as  the  consummation 
of  all  things.  And  you  are  the  persons  to  whom  these  promises  of  the 
prophets  will  be  fulfilled ;  to  you  belong  the  promises  which  God  gave 
to  your  fathers,  the  promise  given  to  Abraham,  that  through  his 
posterity  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.J  As  one  day  a 
blessing  from  this  promised  seed  of  Abraham  shall  extend  to  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth,§  so  shall  it  first  be  fulfilled  to  you,  if  you  turn  from 
your  sins  to  him.|| 

The  commotion  produced  among  the  people  who  gathered  round  the 
apostles  in  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  at  last  aroused  the  attention  and 
suspicion  of  the  priests,  whose  office  it  was  to  perform  the  service  in  the 

*  Peter  by  no  means  acquits  them  of  all  criminality,  as  the  connexion  of  his  words 
with  what  he  had  before  said  plainly  shows  ;  for  he  had  brought  forward  the  example  of 
Pilate  to  point  out  how  great  was  the  criminality  of  those  who,  even  in  their  blindness, 
condemned  Jesus ;  but  ignorance  may  be  more  or  less  culpable,  according  to  the  difference 
of  the  persons. 

■j-  Peter  here  appeals  to  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  xviii.  15,  18,  where  certainly 
according  to  the  connexion,  only  the  prophets  in  general,  by  whom  God  continually  en- 
lightened and  guided  his  people,  are  contrasted  with  the  false  soothsayers  and  magicians 
of  idolatrous  nations.  But  yet,  as  the  Messiah  was  the  last  of  these  promised  prophets, 
to  be  followed  by  no  other,  in  whom  the  whole  prophetic  system  found  its  centre  and 
consummation,  so  far  this  passage  in  its  spirit  may  justly  be  applied  to  the  Messiah ; 
though  we  cannot  affirm  that  Peter  himself  was  distinctly  aware  of  the  difference  between 
the  right  interpretation  of  the  letter,  according  to  grammatical  and  logical  rules,  and  its 
application  in  spirit,  an  application  certainly  not  arbitrary,  but  grounded  on  an  historical 
necessity. 

%  This  promise,  Gen.  xii.  3;  xviii.  18;  xxii.  18,  according  to  its  highest  relation, 
which  must  be  found  in  the  organic  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  fulfilled  by  the 


§  On  the  sense  in  which,  at  that  time,  Peter  understood  this,  see  above,  pp.  19,  20. 

\  It  is  worthy  of  remark  how  entirely  the  speech  of  the  Apostle  Peter  conforms  to  tho 
particular  development  of  Christianity  at  that  period,  containing  nothing  belonging  to  a  later 
stage  of  development,  as  a  speech  invented  by  the  narrator  would  have  been  likely  to  da 


Peter's  speech.  41 

temple,  and  to  preserve  order  there.  The  two  apostles,  with  the 
cured  cripple  who  kept  close  to  them,  were  apprehended,  and  as 
it  was  now  evening,  too  late  for  any  judicial  proceedings,  were  put 
in  confinement  till  the  next  day.*     When  brought  before  the  Sanhe- 

*  Gfrorer  imagines  that  be  can  show  that  this  narrative  was  only  a  legendary  echo  of 
the  accounts  in  the  Gospels,  a  transference  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  to  the  apostles,  and 
he  often  applies  this  mode  of  interpretation  to  the  first  part  of  the  Acts.  Thus  he  main- 
tains, that  the  words  iu  Acts  iv.  1,  "  By  what  power  and  by  what  name  have  ye  done 
this  ?"  are  copied  from  the  question  addressed  to  Christ,  Luke  xx.  2 :  "  Tell  us  by  what 
authority  thou  doest  these  things  ?"  and  that  this  is  proved  to  be  a  false  transference,  be- 
cause the  question  stands  in  its  right  place  in  the  Gospel  history,  but  not  in  the  narrative 
of  the  Acts :  "  for,  according  to  the  Jewish  notions,  every  one  might  cure  diseases."  But 
though  the  cure  of  a  disease  need  not  occasion  any  further  inquiries,  yet  a  cure  which  ap- 
peared to  be  accomplished  by  supernatural  power,  might  properly  call  forth  the  inquiry, 
"Whence  did  he  who  performed  it  profess  to  receive  the  power  ?  The  question  involved, 
and  it  was  so  understood  by  Peter,  an  accusation  that  he  professed  to  have  received  power 
for  performing  such  things,  through  bis  connection  with  an  individual  who  had  been  con- 
demned by  the  Sanhedrim.  The  question  was  intended  to  call  forth  a  confession  uf  guilt. 
Equally  groundless  is  Gfrorer's  supposition,  that  the  quotation  in  Acts  iv.  11,  "  This  is  the 
stone  which  was  set  at  nought  of  you  builders,"  refers  to  Matthew  xxi.  42,  and  can  only 
be  understood  by  such  a  reference.  The  connexion  of  the  passage  is  sufficiently  explicit, 
and  is  as  follows :  "  If  ye  call  us  to  account  for  the  testimony  we  bear  to  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  ye  will  verify  what  was  predicted  in  that  passage  of  the  Psalms.  The  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  condemned  by  the  heads  of  the  Jewish  polity,  is  honored  by  God  to  be  made  the 
foundation  on  which  the  whole  kingdom  of  God  rests.  He  has  received  from  God  the 
power  by  which  we  effect  such  miracles." 

Gfrorer  further  remarks,  that  the  plainest  proof  that  this  narrative  is  defective  in  histor- 
ical truth  lies  in  verse  16,  "What  shall  we  do  to  these. men?  for  that  indeed  a  notable 
miracle  hath  been  done  by  them  is  manifest  to  all  them  that  dwell  in  Jerusalem,  and  we 
cannot  deny  it ;"  he  asserts  that  these  persons  could  not  have  so  expressed  themselves. 
But  if  the  author  of  this  account  has  put  in  the  mouth  of  the  Sanhedrim  what  he  believed 
might  be  presumed  to  be  the  thoughts  that  influenced  their  conduct,  can  it  on  that  account 
be  reasonably  inferred  that  the  narrative  is  in  the  main  unhistorical  ?  The  same  remark 
applies  to  Baur's  objections,  page  18.  An  exact  account  of  what  took  place  in  the  Sanhe- 
drim we  cannot  indeed  expect.  We  know,  to  begin  with,  that  we  have  not  before  us  a 
formal  legal  deposition.  But  the  want  of  such  a  document  can  be  no  reason  for  casting 
doubt  upon  the  whole  transaction.  Do  we  pronounce  the  historical  narratives  of  the  an- 
cients to  be  untrustworthy,  because  the  speeches  they  contain  were  composed  in  accordance 
with  the  sentiments  of  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  attributed  ?  But  with  the  ancients 
we  recognize  that  art  in  composition  which  lets  every  one  say  what  he  might  have  said 
from  his  stand-point,  and  in  his  own  character.  In  the  accounts  now  under  consideration, 
on  the  contrary,  this  objectivity  of  historical  art  is  wanting,  and  where,  as  frequently  oc- 
curs in  the  Acts,  original  accounts,  such  as  are  furnished  by  the  discourses  of  Peter  or  Paul, 
do  not  form  the  basis,  we  cannot  be  surprised,  if,  in  such  artless  narratives,  the  principle 
that  was  believed  to  animate  the  proceedings  against  the  Christians  should  be  put  into  the 
mouths  of  the  actors  as  their  subjective  motive.  Lastly,  the  conduct  of  the  Sanhedrim  is 
by  no  means  so  marked  by  want  of  discernment  and  of  good  sense  as  to  render  the  narrative 
palpably  unhistorical.  From  their  stand-point  the  Sanhedrim  could  not  recognize  a  miracle 
in  the  cure  of  the  lame  man.  And  yet,  as  they  had  no  means  at  hand  to  explain  the  whole 
as  an  imposture,  and  to  convince  the  people  of  it,  they  were  obliged  to  hush  up  the  affair, 
if  possible,  without  arousing  afresh,  by  more  violent  and  forcible  measures,  the  popular 
enthusiasm  which  they  wished  t:>  allay.      But,  certainly,  every  plan  will  prove  at  last 


42  THE   CHRISTIAN    CHUECH   IN   PALESTINE. 

drim,*  Peter,  full  of  holy  inspiration,  and  raised  by  it  above  the  fear  of 
man,  testified  to  the  rulers  of  the  Jewish  nation  that  only  by  the  might 
of  him  whom  they  had  crucified,  but  whom  God  had  raised  from  the 
dead,  it  had  come  to  pass,  that  they  beheld  this  man  standing  in  per- 
fect soundness  before  them.f  He  was  the  stone  despised  by  the  build- 
ers, (those  who  wished  to  be  the  leaders  of  God's  people,)  who  had  be- 
come the  foundation-stone  on  which  the  whole  building  of  God's  king- 
dom must  rest.  Psalm  cxviii.  22.  There  was  no  other  means  of  obtain- 
ing salvation,  but  by  faith  in  Him  alone. 

The  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  astonished  to  hear  men,  who  had 
not  been  educated  in  the  Jewish  schools,  and  whom  they  despised  as 
illiterate,  speak  with  such  confidence  and  power,  and  they  knew  not 
what  to  make  of  the  undeniable  fact,  the  cure  of  the  lame  man ;  but 
their  prejudices  and  spiritual  pride  would  not  allow  them  to  investigate 
more  closely  the  cause  of  the  fact  which  had  taken  place  before  their 
eyes.  They  only  wished  to  suppress  the  excitement  wrhich  the  event 
had  occasioned,  for  they  could  not  charge  any  false  doctrine  on  the 
apostles,  who  taught  a  strict  observance  of  the  law.  Perhaps  also  the 
secret,  though  not  altogether  decided  friends,  whom  the  cause  of  Christ 
had  from  the  first  among  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  exerted  an 
influence  in  favor  of  the  accused.^     The  schism  likewise  between  the 

to  be  devoid  of  sense,  which  is  undertaken  against  a  movement  in  men's  minds 
founded  on  perfect  justice  and  undeniable  truth, — a  folly  which  earthly  rulers  are  still  apt 
to  repeat. 

*  Baur  is  certainly  right,  when  in  the  words  elc  'lepovGaXtj/n,  Acts  iv.  5,  he  finds  an 
implication  that  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  not  all  then  present  in  Jerusalem,  p. 
16.  But  when  he  detects  here  a  design  on  the  part  of  the  inventive  historian,  to  insinuate 
how  very  important  the  affair  was  regarded  by  the  authorities,  we  cannot  agree  with  him. 
If  he  had  written  with  this  design  he  certainly  would  not  have  satisfied  himself  with  such  an 
intimation,  but  would  have  expressed  much  more  strongly  what  he  wished  to  be  noticed. 
In  this  form  of  expression  we  see  nothing  more  than  that  it  was  known  to  the  reporter, 
who,  from  his  proximity,  was  best  acquainted  with  the  events,  that  a  part  of  the  members 
of  the  Sanhedrim  were  not  then  residing  in  the  city,  and  were  perhaps  scattered  about  the 
adjacent  country,  and  that  his  knowledge  of  this  circumstance  unconsciously  affected  his 
phraseology.  So  that,  on  the  contrary,  in  this  little  turn  of  expression  we  find  a  mark  of 
originality  and  the  absence  of  design. 

f  Baur  is  also  disposed  to  see  something  unhistorical  in  the  appearing  of  the  lame 
man  after  his  cure,  with  the  two  apostles,  before  the  Sanhedrim.  But  whichever  may 
have  been  the  case,  whether  he  was  seized  in  company  with  the  apostles  and  brought 
forth  at  the  same  time,  or  whether  he  appeared  by  the  special  orders  of  the  Sanhedrim, 
because  the  corpus  delicti  related  to  him;  in  either  case  there  is  nothing  improbable.  The 
Sanhedrim,  or  a  party  in  it,  might  have  wished  to  try  whether  they  could  not  succeed,  by  a 
personal  inspection,  or  cross-examination  of  the  man,  to  elicit  something  which  might  be 
turned  against  the  apostles,  or  tend  to  allay  the  popular  ferment.  Finally,  the  presence 
of  the  man  who  was  made  whole,  at  these  proceedings,  is,  by  no  means,  one  of  those  es- 
sential points  with  which  the  truth  of  the  whole  narrative  stands  or  falls. 

X  Baur  considers  that,  what  I  have  here  regarded  as  possible,  and  as  able,  perhaps,  to 
explain  the  transaction,  is  a  gross  perversion  of  historical  writing,  p.  21.  "Nothing  can  be 
more  blamable,"  he  says,  "  than  an  historical  method  which,  instead  of  examining  a  mat- 
ter openly,  freely,  and  thoroughly,  arbitrarily  introduces  fictions  in  the  place  of  historical 


PETER   AND   JOHN   BEFORE   THE   SANHEDRIM.  43 

Pharisaic  and  Sadducean  parties  in  the  Sanhedrim,  might  have  had  a 
favorable  influence  on  the  conduct  of  that  assembly  towards  the  Chris- 
tians. Hence,  without  making  any  specific  charge  against  the  apostles, 
they  satisfied  themselves  with  imposing  silence  upon  them  by  a  peremp- 
tory mandate ;  which,  according  to  the  existing  ecclesiastical  constitution 
of  the  Jews,  the  Sanhedrim  was  competent  to  issue,  being  the  highest 
tribunal  in  matters  of  faith,  without  whose  sanction  no  one  could  be  ac- 
knowledged as  having  a  divine  commission.  The  ajiostles  protested  that 
they  could  not  comply  with  a  human  injunction,  if  it  was  at  variance 
with  the  laws  of  God,  and  that  they  could  not  be  silent  respecting  what 
they  had  seen  and  heard  ;  the  Sanhedrim,  however,  repeated  the  prohibi- 
tion, and  added  threats  of  punishment  in  case  of  disobedience. 

Meanwhile  this  miracle,  so  publicly  wrought,  the  force  of  Peter's  ad- 
dress, and  the  vain  attempt  to  silence  him  by  threats,  had  the  effect  of 
increasing  the  number  of  Christian  professors  to  about  two  thousand.* 
As  the  apostles,  without  giving  themselves  any  concern  about  the  injunc- 
tion of  the  Sanhedrim,  labored  according  to  the  intention  they  had  pub- 
licly avowed,  both  by  word  and  deed  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel,f  it  is 

truth."  But  such  a  method  I  believe  myself  never  to  have  been  chargeable  with.  I 
have  only  offered  this  as  a  conjecture,  to  which  I  attach  no  great  weight.  The  example 
of  a  Nicodemus,  which,  indeed,  will  find  no  favor  at  the  tribunal  of  a  criticism  that  is 
founded  on  a  system  of  fictions,  proves  that  there  might  be  secret  friends  of  the  cause  of 
Christ  in  the  Sanhedrim,  and  in  the  Acts  (ch.  vi.  7)  it  is  remarked  that  i(  a  great  company 
of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith."  Lastly,  the  representation  I  have  given  of  the 
transaction  stands  in  no  need  of  such  a  conjecture  to  free  the  narrative  from  the  charge  of 
internal  improbability.  I  wish  the  impartial  reader  to  decide  for  himself,  which  of  us,  Dr. 
Baur  or  myself,  lies  most  open  to  the  charge  of  substituting  arbitrary  fictions  for  historical 
truths. 

*  "We  must  here  notice  Baur's  assertion,  that  the  numbers  in  the  Acts  appear  altogether 
unhistorical.  Baur  reasons  thus,  p.  37  :  "  The  number  of  believers  mentioned  in  Acts  i.  15, 
(about  an  hundred  and  twenty)  is  manifestly  false,  for  it  contradicts  the  statement  ot 
the  Apostle  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  G,  that  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  appeared  to  more 
than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once.  If  this  small  number  be  manifestly  incorrect,  then 
the  large  numbers  which  afterwards  occur  in  the  Acts  are  not  more  trustworthy,  and  we 
must  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  small  number  preceded  the  large  ones  only  to  give  a 
more  vivid  impression  of  the  rapid  and  important  increase  of  the  church,  which  makes 
each  class  of  numbers,  the  small  and  the  great,  equally  suspicious."  Even  if  Baur's  sup- 
position were  correct,  the  correctness  of  the  conclusion  he  draws  from  it  is  by  no  means 
evident;  for  of  this  artificial  design  in  the  use  of  small  and  large  numbers,  to  render  more 
illustrious  by  the  contrast  the  Divine  in  the  rapid  spread  of  the  church,  I  can  find  no  trace 
in  the  simple,  artless  representation,  nor  of  any  of  those  little  trickeries  which  Dr.  Baur 
palms  upon  the  author  of  the  Acts ;  and  I  think  that  the  natural  construction  of  the  book 
must  make  this  impression  upon  every  ingenuous  and  unperverted  mind.  But  the  suppo- 
sition itself  I  cannot  allow  to  be  valid.  I  can  see  no  contradiction  between  the  account 
in  the  Acts  and  Paul's  statement;  for  the  reference  in  Acts  i.  15,  is  not  to  the  sum  total 
of  the  whole  Christian  church,  but  merely  to  the  number  of  those  who  were  assembled  iu 
that  place.  Nor  can  I  see  what  Baur  further  maintains,  that  the  persecution  raised  against 
Stephen  will  not  allow  us  to  suppose  that  the  church  was  so  large  and  important,  since  it 
is  by  no  means  clear  that  all  the  Christians  in  Jerusalem  must  have  been  affected  by  that 
persecution. 

f  Dr.  Baur  charges  me  with  a  grave  fault  in  my  historical  investigations — that  I  have 


44  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHUKCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

not  surprising  that  they  were  soon  brought  again  before  the  Sanhedrim 
as%  contumacious.  When  the  president  reproached  them  for  their  diso- 
bedience, Peter  renewed  his  former  protestation  :  "  We  must  obey  God 
rather  than  man.  And  the  God  of  our  fathers,"  he  proceeded  to  say, 
"  is  he  who  has  called  us  to  testify  concerning  Him  of  whom  ye  have  for- 
bidden us  to  speak.  By  his  omnipotence  he  has  raised  that  Jesus  whom 
ye  crucified,  and  has  exalted  him  to  be  the  leader  and  redeemer  of  his 
people,  that  through  him  all  may  be  called  to  repentance,  and  receive 
from  him  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins.  This  we  testify,  and  this  the 
Holy  Spirit  testifies  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  believe  on  him."*    These 


not  mentioned  the  wonderful  deliverance  of  Peter  from  prison.  He  finds  in  the  omission 
a  failure  to  consistently  carry  out  a  naturalistic  principle,  a  dishonorable  concealment  ot 
difficulties.  He  maintains  that  the  alternative  is  necessary,  either  to  confine  oneself  to  a 
simple,  literally  true  relation,  or  allow  historical  criticism,  if  we  believe  it  cannot  be  got 
rid  of  altogether,  to  exercise  all  its  rights.  Certainly,  if  my  work  had  been  exegetical,a  Com- 
mentary on  the  Acts,  I  must  necessarily  have  occupied  myself  with  the  examination  of  that 
special  point — the  opinion  to  be  formed  respecting  the  appearance  of  the  angel,  and 
Peter's  wonderful  release — what  relation  the  subjective  conception  in  the  narrative  of  the 
Acts  bore  to  the  objective  of  the  actual  fact.  But  as  an  historical  writer,  I  was  justified 
in  making  a  selection  from  the  narrative,  of  what  appeared  suitable  to  a  pragmatical  ob- 
ject; I  was  nowise  bound  to  treat  every  point  with  equal  fulness.  The  deliverance  ot 
Peter  from  prison  was  no  very  important  link  for  me  in  the  pragmatical  connection  of  the 
history.  But  since  Dr.  Baur  has  desired  that  I  should  express  myself  on  this  point,  which 
1  passed  over  in  silence,  I  find  no  reason  why  I  should  not  do  it  with  the  utmost  frank- 
ness. I  am  not  troubled  at  the  reproach  of  partiality,  nor  of  inconsistency,  nor  of  indecision, 
nor  of  weakness  of  faith.  I  am  not  prevented  by  a  priori  grounds  from  admitting  the  an- 
gelic appearance ;  but  the  account  is  not  sufficiently  definite  and  exact  to  accredit  such  a 
fact,  and  in  the  words  of  Peter,  spoken  before  the  Sanhedrim,  no  allusion  to  such  a  release  is 
found.  But  if  I  acknowledge  a  break  in  the  historical  conuection  of  this  occurrence,  and 
some  alloy  mixed  with  the  purely  historical,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  there  is  no  his- 
torical truth  at  the  basis,  and  still  less  that  everything  related  in  the  Acts  was  fabricated 
with  a  design  to  magnify  the  apostles.  This  I  cannot  admit  even  in  the  particular  case 
where  I  acknowledge  a  mixture  of  the  unhistorical.  I  would  rather  say,  that  the  fact 
of  a  release  by  a  special  divine  guidance,  to  us  unknown,  became  involuntarily  transferred 
into  the  appearance  of  an  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  freed  Peter  from  prison.  As  to  the 
alternative  laid  down  by  Dr.  Baur,  I  admit  it,  and  avow  that  criticism  must  be  granted  its 
full  right  in  these  investigations.  But  in  the  way  Dr.  Baur  applies  it,  I  cannot  recognise  its 
full  right,  but  only  an  arbitrariness  against  which,  in  accordance  with  my  convictions  of 
the  duty  of  an  historical  inquirer,  I  must  declare  inyselfj  in  its  application  not  only  to  this, 
but  to  any  other  historical  question.  This  criticism,  professedly  so  free  from  assumption, 
proceeds  on  assumptions  which  I  must  reject  as  unfounded ;  and  hence  the  opposition 
which  exists  between  our  modes  of  treating  the  history  of  Christianity. 

*  These  words  (Acts  v.  32)  are  by  many  understood,  as  if  by  the  expression  "  that  obey," 
neidapxovvTEc,  the  apostles  were  intended,  and  as  if  the  sense  of  the  passage  were  this:  We 
testify  of  these  things,  as  the  eye-witnesses  chosen  by  Him;  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
whose  power  we  have  performed  this  cure,  testifies  by  the  works  which  we  accomplish  in 
his  name.  Such  an  interpretatiou  is  certainly  possible.  But  it  is  more  natural,  as  we 
apply  the  first  clause  to  the  apostles,  to  apply  the  second  to  those  who  received  their 
message  in  faith,  and  to  whom  the  truth  of  this  message  was  verified,  independently  of 
their  human  testimony,  by  the  divine  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  hearts;  to  whom 
the  Holy  Spirit  himself  gave  a  pledge  that,  by  faith  in  Jesua,  they  had  received  forgive- 


PETER    AND    JOHN   BEFORE   THE    SANHEDRIM.  45 

words  of  Peter  at  once  aroused  the  wrath  of  the  Sadducees  and  Fanatics, 
and  many  of  them  Avere  clamorous  for  putting  the  apostles  to  death  ;  but 
amidst  the  throng  of  infuriated  zealots,  one  voice  of  temperate  wisdom 
might  be  heard.  Gamaliel,*  one  of  the  seven  most  distinguished  teachers 
of  the  Law,  (the  Rabbanim,)  thus  addressed  the  members  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim :  "  Consider  well  what  ye  do  to  these  men.  Many  founders  of  sects 
and  party-leaders  have  appeared  in  our  day ;  they  have  at  first  acquired 
great  notoriety,  but  in  a  short  time  they  and  their  cause  have  come  to 
nothing."  He  proved  his  assertion  by  several  examples  of  commotions 
and  insurrections  which  happened  about  that  period  among  the  Jews.f 

ness  of  sins  and  a  divine  life.  This  interpretation  is  also  to  be  preferred,  because  Peter, 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  always  wont  to  appeal  to  that  objective  testimony  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  produced  in  all  believers.  If  the  first  interpretation  were  correct,  since 
the  emphasis  would  lie  on  r/uelc,  "  we,"  and  the  Holy  Spirit  by  us,  the  last  clause  should 
accordingly  have  been  rjfilv  tolc  neidapxovaLv,  "  to  us  who  obey." 

*  Baur,  in  p.  35  of  his  work  above  referred  to,  considers  the  introduction  of  Gamaliel 
as  somewhat  unhistorical,  and  the  words  ascribed  to  him  as  a  fabrication.  What  was 
really  historical  (he  declares)  could  only  amount  to  this,  that  at  that  time  the  view  pre- 
vailed among  the  rulers  of  the  Jews  that  it  might  be  best  to  leave  the  cause  of  Jesus  to 
its  own  fate,  in  the  certain  presumption  that  in  a  short  time  it  would  be  seen  how  little 
there  was  in  it ;  and  on  this  presumption  the  speech  was  framed  which  the  historian  puts 
into  the  mouth  of  Gamaliel.  But  we  find  nothing  at  all  which  can  justify  such  a  recasting 
of  history.  The  speech  ascribed  to  Gamaliel  is  so  characteristic  and  individual  that  we 
are  the  less  inclined  to  call  in  question  the  fact  that  it  was  actually  spoken,  and  spoken  by 
Gamaliel.  It  perfectly  suits  the  position  which  this  teacher  of  the  law,  as  he  is  repre- 
sented in  the  text,  occupied  among  the  Jews.  The  man  who  could  form  an  intelligent 
judgment  of  Grecian  literature,  was  also  capable  of  rising  to  this  higher  historical  stand- 
point in  his  judgment  of  Christianity.  That  Paul,  who  was  at  first  animated  by  a  fanatical 
fury  against  Christianity,  proceeded  from  his  school,  is  no  argument  to  the  contrary ;  for  it 
is  allowed  how  little  right  we  have  to  judge  of  teachers  by  their  scholars.  Let  it  be  recol- 
lected, too,  that  this  was  before  Stephen  made  his  appearance,  which  placed  Christianity 
in  a  far  more  odious  light  to  the  party  of  the  Pharisees.  And  if  the  mention  of  the  ex- 
ample of  Theudas  is  an  anachronism,  which  did  not  proceed  from  Gamaliel,  yet  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  the  text,  the  leading  idea  of  the  speech,  did  not  come  from  him.  The 
characteristic  opening  words  of  Gamaliel,  by  the  sharp  impress  they  bear,  might  easily- be 
amplified,  and  it  would  be  very  natural  that  Gamaliel  should  appeal  to  examples  from 
history  in  support  of  his  advice.  This  is  what  we  consider  as  certain.  Baur  maintains 
that  if  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  of  what  had  preceded  these  transactions  in  the  Sanhedrim 
be  correct,  Gamaliel  could  not  have  uttered  such  words ;  for  history,  to  the  evidence  of 
which  he  appealed,  would  have  already  determined  the  question.  Here,  then,  is  the 
dilemma,  either  Gamaliel  did  not  utter  this,  or  all  which  is  here  told  of  the  miracles  of  the 
apostles,  and  the  extension  of  the  Christian  church,  did  not  really  take  place.  But  we 
cannot  acknowledge  the  correctness  of  this  dilemma.  No  external  evidence  is  sufficient 
to  effect  in  man  a  complete  change  of  his  religious  and  intellectual  convictions.  Although 
the  power  with  which  Christianity  diffused  itself,  and  what  he  had  learned  of  the  wonder- 
ful cures  performed  by  the  apostles,  would  strike  Gamaliel  with  astonishment,  yet  they  were 
not  sufficient  to  lead  him  to  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  to  that  point  he  must 
have  come  already,  if  the  evidence  of  history  had  been  all  that  was  needful  to  decide  the 
question  for  him. 

f  The  mention  of  Theudas  in  Gamaliel's  speech,  occasions,  as  is  well  known,  a  great 
difficulty  since  his  insurrection  seems  as  if  it  could  be  no  other  than  that  mentioned  by 


46  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

They  might  safely  leave  this  affair  also  to  itself.  If  of  human  origin,  it 
would  speedily  come  to  an  end  ;  but  if  it  should  be  something  divine, 
vain  would  be  the  attempt  to  put  it  down  by  human  power,  and  let  them 
see  to  it,  that  they  were  not  guilty  of  rebellion  against  God. 

Too  much  has  been  attributed  to  these  words  of  Gamaliel,  when  it  has 
been  inferred  from  them  that  he  was  a  secret  adherent  of  the  gospel  ;* 
the  connection  he  kept  up  with  the  Jewish  schools  of  theology  precludes 
such  a  supposition.  By  the  traditions  of  the  Gemara  we  are  justified  in 
considering  him  one  of  the  freethinking  Jewish  theologians,  as  we  also 
learn  from  his  being  in  favor  of  the  cultivation  of  Grecian  literature  ;f 
and  from  his  peculiar  mental  constitution  we  might  likewise  infer,  that 
he  could  be  easily  moved  by  an  impression  of  the  divine,  even  in  ap- 
pearances which  did  not  bear  the  stamp  of  his  party.  Many  of  his 
expressions,  which  are'preserved  in  the  Mishna,  mark  him  plainly  enough 
to  have  been  a  strict  Pharisee,  as  he  is  described  by  his  pupil  Paul ; 
the  great  respect,  too,  in  which  he  has  ever  been  held  by  the  Jews  is  a 
sufficient  proof  that  they  never  doubted  the  soundness  of  his  creed,  that 
he  could  not  be  accused  of  any  suspicious  connection  with  the  heretical 
sect.  On  the  one  hand,  he  had  a  clear  perception  of  the  fact,  that  all 
fanatical  movements  are  generally  rendered  more  violent  by  opposition, 
and  that  what  in  itself  is  insignificant,  is  often  raised  into  importance  by 
forcible  attempts  to  suppress  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  manner  in 
which  the  apostles  spoke  and  acted  must  have  made  some  impression  on 
a  man  not  wholly  prejudiced ;  while  their  exact  observance  of  the  law, 
and  hostile  attitude  towards  Sadduceeism,  must  have  disposed  him 
more  strongly  in  their  favor,  and  hence  the  thought  might  have  arisen 
in  his  mind  that,  after  all,  there  was  perhaps  something  divine  in  the 
cause  they  advocated.  His  counsel  prevailed  ;  no  heavier  punishment 
than  scourging  was  inflicted  on  the  apostles  for  their  disobedience,  and 
they  were  dismissed  after  the  former  prohibition  had  been  repeated. 

Up  to  this  time  the  members  of  the  new  sect,  being  strict  observers 
of  the  law,  and  agreeing  with  the  Pharisees  in  their  opposition  to  the 
Sadducees,  appeared  in  a  favorable  light  to  at  least  the  moderate  of  the 

Josephus,  Antiq.  xx.  5,  1 ;  but  to  admit  this  would  involve  an  anachronism.  It  is  very 
possible  that,  at  different  times,  two  persons  named  Theudas  raised  a  sedition  among  the 
Jews,  as  the  name  was  by  no  means  uncommon.  Origen  (against  Celsus,  i.  57)  mentions 
a  Theudas  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  but  his  testimony  is  not  of  great  weight,  for  perhaps 
he  fixed  the  time  by  the  account  in  the  Acts.  It  is  also  possible  that  Luke,  in  the  rela- 
tion of  the  event  which  he  had  before  him,  found  the  example  of  Theudas  adduced  as 
something  analogous,  or  that  one  name  has  happened  to  be  substituted  for  another.  In 
either  case  it  is  of  little  importance. 

*  In  the  Clementines,  i.  65,  on  the  principle  of  fraus  pia,  it  is  supposed  that,  by  the 
advice  of  the  apostles,  he  remained  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  concealed  his  real 
faith  in  order  to  act  for  the  advantage  of  the  Christians,  and  to  give  them  secret  informa* 
tion  of  all  the  designs  formed  against  them. 

\  See  Jost's  History  of  the  Israelites,  vol.  iii.  p.  170. 


STEPHEN.  47 

former.*  But  this  amicable  relation  was  at  an  end  as  soon  as  they  came, 
or  threatened  to  come,  into  open  conflict  with  the  principles  of  Pharisaism 
itself,  as  soon  as  the  spirit  of  the  new  doctrine  was  felt  to  he  more  dis- 
tinctly antagonistic — an  effect  produced  by  an  individual,  memorable  on 
this  account  in  the  early  annals  of  Christianity,  the  proto-martyr  Stephen. 

The  deacons,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  were  primarily  appointed 
for  a  secular  object,  but  in  the  discharge  of  their  special  duty  they  fre- 
quently came  in  contact  with  home  and  foreign  Jews ;  and  since  men  had 
been  chosen  for  this- office  who  were  full  of  Christian  zeal,  full  of  Christian 
faith,  and  full  of  Christian  wisdom  and  prudence,  they  possessed  both 
the  inward  call  and  the  ability  to  make  use  of  these  numerous  opportu- 
nities for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  among  the  Jews.  In  these  attempts 
Stephen  particularly  distinguished  himself.  As  a  man  of  Hellenistic 
descent  and  education,  he  was  better  fitted  than  a  native  of  Palestine  to 
enter  into  the  views  of  those  foreign  Jews  who  had  synagogues  for 
their  exclusive  use  at  Jerusalem,  and  thus  to  lead  them  to  receive  the 
gospel.  The  Holy  Spirit,  who  hitherto  had  employed  as  instruments  for 
the  spread  of  the  gospel,  only  Palestinian  Jews,  now  fitted  for  his  ser- 
vice an  individual  of  very  different 'culture,  the  Hellenistic  Stephen;  and 
the  result  of  this  choice  was  very  important. 

Although  what  we  say  is  disputed  by  persons  occupying  two  oppo- 
site stand-points — those  who  in  a  rude  and  lifeless  manner  advocate  the 
supernatural  in  Christianity,  and  those  who  deny  everything  supernatural, 
— yet  Ave  cannot  give  up  an  idea  which  is  of  importance  in  relation  to 
the  development  of  Christianity  from  the  beginning,  namely,  that  the 
supernatural  and  the  natural,  the  Divine  and  the  human,  always  work 
together  in  harmony. 

Although  the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  according  to  the  Saviour's  promise, 
could  lead  the  apostles  to  a  clear  perception  of  the  contents  of  the  whole 
truthf  announced  by  himself;  yet  the  quicker  or  slower  development  of 
this  perception  was  in  many  respects  dependent  on  the  mental  peculiarity 
and  the  special  results  of  the  general  and  religious  culture,  of  the  indi- 
viduals who  were  thus  to  be  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  one 
individual  the  development  of  Christian  consciousness  was  prepared  for 
by  his  previous  stand-point ;  and  hence,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  a  knowledge  (yvCjaig)  of  Christian  truth  rapidly  developed  itself 
from  faith  (marig)  ;  whereas,  for  another  to  attain  the  same  insight,  the 
bounds  which  confined  his  previous  stand-point  must  be  first  broken 
down  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  operating  in  a  more  immediate 
manner,  by  a  new  additional  revelation  (dnoKaXvipig).  Thus  we  per- 
ceive how  the  mixing  of  the  theocratic  element,  which  had  served  for  the 

*  See  Schneckenburger's  Essay  in  his  Beitragen  zur  Einleitung  in's  Neue  Testament, 
p.  87. 

f  Christ  did  not  promise  the  apostles  indefinitely  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  guide 
them  into  all  things,  but  into  the  whole  of  the  truth,  which  he  came  to  announce  for  the 
Balvation  of  mankind.     John  xvu  13.     See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  400. 


48  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

development  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  with  Grecian  culture,  must  have 
served  to  prepare  the  way  for  understanding  the  truth  revealed  by  Christ; 
for,  thus  the  coarse  and  narrow  Jewish  spirit  was  refined  and  expanded, 
so  that  it  could  follow  more  easily  the  development  of  Christian  truth 
when  it  broke  through  the  limits  of  Jewish  nationality. 

When  Christ  spoke  to  his  apostles  of  certain  things  which  they  could 
not  yet  comprehend,  but  which  must  be  first  revealed  to  them  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he,  no  doubt,  referred  to  the  nature  of  that  worship  of  God 
which  is  not  necessarily  confined  to  place  or  time,  or  to  any  kind  what- 
ever of  outward  observances — the  worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  with 
which  the  abolition  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law  (that  wall  of  separation 
between  the  chosen  people  of  God  and  other  nations,  Eph.  ii.  14),  and 
the  union  of  all  nations  in  one  spiritual  worship  and  one  faith,  were 
closely  connected.  The  apostles,  doubtless,  had  by  this  time  understood, 
through  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  nature  of  the  spiritual 
worship  founded  on  faith  ;  but  the  consequences  flowing  from  it  in  rela- 
tion to  outward  Judaism  they  had  not  yet  clearly  apprehended.  In  this 
respect,  their  stand-point  resembled  Luther's  after  he  had  attained  a  liv- 
ing faith  in  justification,  in  reference  to  outward  Catholicism,  ere  he  had, 
by  the  further  maturing  of  his  Christian  knowledge,  abjured  that  also ; 
and  that  of  many  who  before  and  since  the  Reformation  have  attained  to 
vital  Christianity,  though  still  to  a  degree  enthralled  in  the  fetters  of 
Catholicism.  Thus  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the  apostles  could  not 
be  developed  into  a  clear  perception  of  the  truth  in  this  respect,  till  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  had  been  freed  from  the  fetters  of 
their  strictly  Jewish  training.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Hellenistic  Ste- 
phen needed  not  to  attain  this  mental  freedom  by  a  new  immediate  oper- 
ation of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  he  was  already,  by  his  early  development 
in  Hellenistic  culture,  more  free  from  these  fetters ;  he  was  not  so  much 
entangled  in  Jewish  nationality ;  and  hence  his  faith  could  in  this  respect 
be  more  readily  developed  into  Christian  knowledge,  and  he  could  more 
easily  and  quickly  attain  to  the  apprehension  of  that  which  is  grounded 
in  the  nature  of  Christian  truth,  and  is  intimated  in  single  expressions  of 
Christ. 

If  there  had  been  given  to  us  a  pragmatic  historical  narrative  of 
these  facts,  after  the  manner  of  the  classic  historians  of  antiquity,  pre- 
senting everything  in  its  genetic  development,  and  distinguishing  the 
various  forces  in  actions  and  events,  we  might  be  able  to  determine 
more  exactly  the  position  which  Stephen  occupied, — his  relation  to  Paul 
in  the  development  of  Christianity.  But  since  the  accounts  in  the  Acts 
are  not  of  this  sort,  and  contain  many  gaps,  nothing  is  left  for  us  but  to 
adopt  that  divining  and  combining  process,  by  which  many  passages  in 
history  have  first  been  placed  in  their  true  light ;  which  can  find  in  frag- 
ments a  whole,  and,  where  only  effects  are  presented  to  the  eye,  can 
educe  and  lay  open  their  principles  and  causes.  Stephen  disputed  much, 
as  we  are  expressly  told  in  ch.  vi.  9,  with  the  foreign  Hellenistic  Jews, 


STEPHEN.  49 

and  we  may  justly  assume  that  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  and  of  his  work  as  truly  Messianic,  formed  the  subject  of  these 
disputations — that  Stephen  used  the  Old  Testament  to  lead  the  Hellen- 
istic Jews  to  this  acknowledgment,  and  that  consequently  these  disputa- 
tions would  relate  to  the  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament.  Great  irrita- 
tion was  excited  against  Stephen,  such  as  had  never  till  that  time  been 
called  forth  on  the  question  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  The  San- 
hedrim had  believed  that  it  was  necessary  to  check  the  spread  of  the 
new  sect ;  but  of  .an  upstir  among  the  people  in  relation  to  it,  no  trace 
had  yet  been  seen ;  something  new,  therefore,  must  have  intervened  by 
which  the  acknowledgement  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  had  become  so 
offensive  to  those  who  adhered  to  the  established  religion.  And  this 
supposition  is  confirmed  by  the  charge  brought  against  Stephen  by  the 
parties  who  were  thus  irritated:  "We  have  heard  him  speak  blasphem- 
ous words  against  Moses  and  against  God,"  Acts  vi.  11.  Now  for  the 
first  time  since  Christ  personally  had  ceased  to  be  the  object  of  the  at- 
tacks of  the  Pharisaic  party,  was  such  an  accusation  heard  against  a 
Christian ;  for  hitherto  the  believers,  agreeing  with  the  Pharisees  in  the 
strict  observance  of  the  Mosaio  Law,  had  given  occasion  for  no  such 
charge.  Evidently,  it  was  not  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  but  the  manner  in  which  Stephen  spoke  of  the  Messianic  work 
of  Jesus,  and  of  the  effects  that  would  be  produced  by  Christianity,  that 
was  the  occasion  of  this  charge  of  heresy.  The  charge  of  uttering  blas- 
phemy against  Moses  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  Stephen  was  the  first 
who  presented  the  Gospel  in  opposition  to  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  had 
spoken  against  its  justifying  power  and  perpetual  validity  ;  and  this,  to 
the  Jews,  who  made  all  justification  and  sanctification  to  depend  on 
the  law,  and  believed  in  its  indefeasible  validity,  must  have  appeared 
as  blaspheming  the  divine  authority  of  Moses.  It  would  also  appear  to 
them  as  blasphemy  against  God,  in  whose  name,  and  as  whose  ambassa- 
dor, Moses  appeared,  and  who  had  promised  an  ever-enduring  validity 
to  his  law.  Stephen,  we  may  presume,  as  Paul  at  a  later  pei'iod,  en- 
deavored to  prove  from  the  prophetic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
that  too  much  was  ascribed  to  the  law  from  the  ordinary  Jewish  stand- 
point, and  that  the  Old  Testament  itself  pointed  to  a  higher  position, 
to  which  it  was  only  preparatory.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  charge 
brought  by  the  Sanhedrim  against  Stephen,  which  we  shall  notice 
presently.  The  whole  religious  cultus  of  the  Old  Testament  is  founded 
on  the  principle  that  religion  was  held  within  the  bounds  of  space  and 
time,  and  must  necessarily  be  connected  with  certain  places  and  times 
The  controversy  against  an  over-valuation  of  the  law  must  hence  have 
led  Stephen  to  controvert  an  over-valuation  of  the  temple.  By  him  it 
was  first  confessed  and  proclaimed,  that  a  perfectly  new  stand-point  in 
the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  created  by  Christ — 
a  purely  spiritual  worship  embracing  the  whole  life  of  which  faith  in  its 
founder  would  be  at  once  the  foundation  and  centre.    He  referred,  prob- 

4 


50  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN  PALESTINE. 

ably,  to  the  expressions  of  Christ  which  related  to  the  impending  de- 
struction of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  founding  a  new  one  by 
Himself,  as  well  as  to  other  intimations  of  that  universal  transformation 
which  should  proceed  from  the  words  spoken  through  Him,  since  Math 
the  Temple  the  whole  form  of  the  Old  Testament  cultus  must  come  to 
an  end.  But  if  our  supposition  be  correct,  how  can  we  consider  that 
the  charge  brought  against  Stephen  deserved  to  be  called  a  false  one? 
In  the  same  sense  in  which  it  might  be  afterwards  said  of  Paul,  that 
his  enemies  unjustly  accused  him  of  blasphemy  against  Moses,  against 
the  Temple  of  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament.  While  Stephen  was  con- 
vinced that,  taking  into  account  the  ultimate  aim  of  the  Old  Testament 
development,  he  only  honored  the  Old  Testament  and  God  as  therein 
revealed,  he  was  charged  with  an  inimical  design;  and  since  his  oppo- 
nents understood  in  a  different  sense  what  he  said,  from  what  he  in- 
tended, he  could,  in  this  respect,  designate  their  accusation  as  false. 
Moreover,  it  is  possible,  that  the  materials  which  the  author  of  the  Acts 
made  use  of  in  this  part  of  his  narrative,  proceeded  from  a  person  who 
could  not  comprehend  the  position  to  which  Stephen  was  elevated, 
and  hence  could  not  distinguish  Stephen's  real  meaning  from  what  his 
enemies  charged  him  with.  Stephen's  defense*  would  also  have  taken 
quite  a  different  form,  if  he  could  have  explained  the  charges  brought 
against  him  as  entirely  founded  on  misapprehension — if  he  had  not  ac- 
knowledged a  portion  of  truth  as  the  ground-work  which  he  could  not 
retract,  but  was  on  the  contrary  prepared  to  maintain  with  earnestness. 
After  this  preliminary  justification  we  proceed  with  the  narrative. 

Stephen  was  the  forerunner  of  the  great  Paul,  in  his  perception  of 
Christian  truth  and  the  testimony  he  bore  to  it,  as  well  as  in  his  conflict 
for  it  with  the  carnal  Jews,  who  obstinately  adhered  to  their  ancient 
conceptions.!    It  is  highly  probable  that  he  was  first  led  by  his  dispu- 

'•  But  here  the  question  arises  whether  we  have  the  discourse  of  Stephen  in  all  essen- 
tial points  as  it  was  spoken,  or  a  production  of  the  author  of  the  Acts  fitted  to  a  precon- 
ceived plan.  The  latter  is  advocated  by  Baur.  But  we  must  maintain  that  if  the  author 
of  the  Acts  had  been  so  skilled  in  historic  art  as  to  be  able  to  transport  himself  to  Ste- 
phen's stand-point,  and  to  invent  such  a  discourse  in  his  style  and  character,  his  own  his- 
torical composition  would  have  been  altogether  different.  He  would,  from  the  first,  havo 
drawn  a  clearer  representation  of  the  man,  and  of  his  importance  in  relation  to  the  subse- 
quent development  of  Christianity,  which  would  have  rendered  it  needless  for  us  to  at- 
tempt it  by  means  of  a  conjectural  combination.  The  manner  in  which  these  things  are 
narrated,  stands  in  the  most  striking  contrast  to  that  artistical  dexterity  which  is  presup- 
posed in  the  invention  of  such  a  discourse.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  if  a 
writer  had  wished  to  represent  in  the  person  of  Stephen,  the  collision  that  then  first  took 
place  between  the  spiritual  worship  of  Christianity  and  the  stand-point  of  the  Jewish  cul- 
tus still  involved  in  carnality,  he  would  so  have  concealed  his  real  design,  that  it  would 
only  be  apparent  at  the  end.  A  plan  so  artificial  and  carefully  adjusted  could  hardly  have 
been  undertaken  by  a  Christian  of  that  primitive  age. 

\  To  which  Baur  of  Tubingen  has  properly  drawn  attention  in  his  acute  and  spirited 
"Weihnachtsprogramm  of  the  year  1829:  Be  Orationis  habitce  a  Stephano  Act.  c.  vii. 
tonsilio.     While  I  recognize  a  divine,  objective  historical   pragmatism  in  the  relation  to 


STEPHEN.  51 

tations  with  the  Hellenists,  to  present  the  gospel  on  the  side  of  its  oppo- 
sition to  the  Mosaic  law ;  to  combat  the  belief  in  the  necessity  of  that 
law  for  the  justification  and  sanctification  of  men,  and,  what  was  con- 
nected therewith,  its  perpetual  obligation,  and  then  to  show  that  the 
new  spirit  of  the  gospel  freed  it  altogether  from  the  outward  forms  of 
Judaism  ;  that  the  new  spirit  of  religion  required  an  entirely  new  form. 
As,  agreeably  to  the  prophecy  of  Christ,  the  destruction  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  with  which  the  Jews  had  hitherto 'considered  the  worship  of 
God  as  necessarily  and  essentially  connected,  was  now  about  to  take 
place  by  means  of  the  divine  judgments  on  the  degenerate  earthly  king- 
dom of  God,  through  the  victorious  divine  power  of  the  Messiah,  exalted 
to  the  right  hand  of  his  heavenly  Father — so  would  the  whole  outward 
system  of  Judaism  fall  with  this  its  only  earthly  sanctuary,  and  the 
Theocracy  arise  glorified  and  spiritualized  from  its  earthly  trammels.  We 
cannot  determine  with  confidence,  to  what  extent  Stephen,  in  his  dispu- 
tations with  the  Jews,  developed  all  this,  but  we  may  infer  with  certainty 
from  the  consequences,  that  it  was  more  or  less  explicitly  stated  by  this 
enlightened  man.  Hence  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  rage  of  the  Pharisees 
was  now  excited,  as  it  had  never  yet  been,  against  the  promulgators  of 
the  new  doctrine  ;  hence  an  accusation  such  as  had  never  yet  been 
brought  against  them — that  Stephen  had  uttered  blasphemous  words 
against  Jehovah  and  against  Moses.  We  are  told,  indeed,  that  false 
witnesses  deposed  against  him  that  he  ceased  not  to  speak  against  the 
Holy  Place  (the  temple)  and  the  Law — that  he  had  declared  that  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  would  destroy  the  temple  and  abrogate  the  usages  handed 
down  from  Moses.  But  although  these  accusations  are  represented  as 
the  depositions  of  false  witnesses,  it  does  not  follow,  that  M  that  they 
said  was  a  fabrication,  but  only  that  they  had,  on  many  points,  distorted 
the  assertions  of  Stephen,  with  an  evil  intention.  They  accused  him  of 
attacking  the  divine  origin  and  holiness  of  the  law,  and  of  blaspheming 
Moses ;  all  which  was  very  far  from  his  design.  Yet  he  must,  by  what 
he  said,  have  given  them  some  occasion  for  their  misrepresentations,  for 
before  this  time,  nothing  similar  had  been  brought  against  the  publishers 
of  the  gospel ;  hence  we  may  make  use  of  their  allegations  to  find  out  what 

each  other,  of  these  two  champions  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  thank  Dr.  Baur  who,  per- 
haps, first  drew  my  attention  to  it,  I  cannot,  on  the  other  hand,  agree  with  Dr.  Schneck- 
enburger,  who  thinks  he  has  detected  a  subjective  pragmatism  purposely  framed  by  Luke. 
In  the  simple  representation  given  by  Luke  from  the  single  accounts  lying  before  him,  I 
cannot  discover  any  direct  intention  to  exhibit  Stephen  in  his  public  character  and  in 
his  disputations  with  the  Jews  as  a  prototype  of  Paul.  (See  Schneckenburger's  treatise 
on  the  Object  of  the  Acts:  Bern,  1841:  pp.  172,  184.)  If  such  had  really  been  his 
design,  it  would,  I  think,  have  been  more  strongly  marked,  after  the  manner  of  hi3  times. 
Indeed,  this  whole  historic  view  of  the  apologetic  aim  of  Luke,  as  a  partisan  of  Paul,  in 
opposition  to  the  Petrine  party,  is  too  artificially  made  out  from  the  book,  and  too  little 
supported  by  the  author's  own  words,  for  me  to  favor  the  hypothesis.  % 


52  THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    IN    PALESTINE. 

Stephen  really  said.*  And  his  defence  plainly  indicates  that  he  by  no 
means  intended  to  repel  the  accusation  as  altogether  a  falsity,  but  rather 
to  acknowledge  that  there  Avas  truth  mixed  up  with  it ;  that  what  he 
had  really  spoken,  and  what  was  already  so  obnoxious  to  the  Jews,  he 
had  no  wish  to  deny,  but  only  to  develop  and  establish  it  in  its  right 
connection.  Only  thus  we  gain  the  true  point  of  view  for  understanding 
this  memorable  and  often  misunderstood  speech. 

Stephen  was  seized  by  his  embittered  enemies,  brought  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  and  accused  of  blasphemy.f     But  those  not  altogether  unsus- 

*  Baur  properly  compares  this  with  what  the  false  witnesses  said  against  Christ. 
(Matt.  xxvi.  61.)  See  "  Life  of  Christ,"  p.  171.  But  when  Baur,  in  his  book  on  Paul,  p.  56, 
would  find  in  it  no  historical  truth,  but  only  a  designed  imitation  of  the  history  of  Christ, 
transferring  to  Stephen  what  in  Matt.  xxvi.  60,  is  said  of  Christ,  we  cannot  grant  our  ap- 
proval. We  can  discover  no  trace  of  such  a  design.  "  But,"  says  Baur,  "  since  false  wit- 
nesses appeared  against  Jesus  with  the  same  accusation,  so  false  witnesses  must  not  be 
wanting  here ;  as  little  as  it  may  appear  how  their  testimony  could  have  been  only  false." 
But  there  is  no  contradiction  in  this,  that  an  accusation  may  be  false  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  put  forth  by  those  who  make  use  of  it,  and  yet  a  truth  lie  at  its  basis.  But  that  the 
author  of  the  Acts  has  not  distinguished  and  developed  more  clearly  in  what  sense  the 
accusation  may  have  been  false,  and  in  what  sense  it  contained  truth,  instead  of  exhibiting 
design,  shows  rather  the  want  of  historical  skill  and  of  a  development  conformed  to  a  pre- 
conceived plan. 

f  Baur  is  disposed  to  find  in  the  whole  progress  of  this  transaction,  something  unhis- 
torical.  How  can  it  be  supposed,  he  says,  that  Stephen  would  be  accused  in  this  tumult- 
uous manner  by  the  Sanhedrim,  who  listened  to  him  at  first  so  quietly,  but  then  are 
described  as  all  at  once  breaking  out  upon  him  with  such  fury  ?  This  tribunal  would 
have  compromised  its  dignity,  and  by  such  an  extra  judicial  infliction  of  death,  have 
exposed  itself  to  the  heaviest  responsibility  before  the  Roman  governor.  As  no  consistent 
notion  of  such  an  act  of  the  Sanhedrim  can  be  formed,  it  is  far  more  probable,  that 
everything  proceeded  only  from  a  tumultuary  movement  of  the  people,  who  seized  Stephen 
in  their  fanatical  excitement,  and  dragged  him  forth  to  be  stoned.  But  since  the  author  of 
the  Acts  wished  to  give  the  transaction  great  importance,  to  represent  in  Stephen  the  image 
of  Christ,  since  he  wished  him  to  deliver  a  discourse,  he  must  bring  him  before  the  Sanhe- 
drim, and  be  must,  however  improbable  it  may  be,  let  them  take  part  in  the  tumultuous 
proceedings  against  him.  We  grant,  that  in  the  description  given  in  the  Acts  there  is  a 
want  of  clearness  and  luminousness  in  particular  points,  but  this  can  decide  nothing 
against  the  credibility  of  the  whole.  Although  we  should  not  dispute  very  strongly 
whether  Stephen  wero  sacrificed  to  popular  fury,  or  appeared  before  the  Sanhedrim  itself, 
still  wo  find  a  pledge  for  the  latter  in  this:  that  the  discourse  handed  down  to  us  beats 
the  impress  of  one  actually  delivered,  and  presupposes  such  a  tribunal  before  which  it  was 
delivered.  "We  may  suppose  that  the  fanatical  Jews  dragged  Stephen  before  the  San- 
hedrim just  assembled,  or  that  the  Sanhedrim  was  assembled  for  the  examination  of  this 
charge ;  for  we  are  surely  not  justified  in  admitting,  that  everything  that  is  narrated  in 
the  acts  respecting  Stephen  happened  in  one  day.  Now,  hitherto,  no  occasion  had  been 
found  to  accuse  the  Christians  of  apostasy  from  Judaism ;  nothing  was  known  of  them, 
which  could  make  that  accusation  credible.  It  might,  therefore,  happen  that  the  better 
members  of  the  Pharisaic  party  in  the  Sanhedrim  were  not  really  prejudiced  against 
Stephen.  When  he  appeared  before  them,  the  Divine,  which  expressed  itself  in  his  whole 
appearance,  at  first  made  an  impression  that  commanded  the  regard  of  a  part  of  the 
assembly ;  and  then  the  manner  in  which  he  began  to  speak  of  the  dealings  of  God  with 
their  forefathers  was  suited  to  testify  to  his  piety,  to  counterwork  the  accusations  brought 
against  him,  and  to  dispose  his  hearers  in  his  favor.     Also,  though  we  who  have  the  whole 


STEPHEN.  53 

ceptible  in  the  assembly  were  unfitted  by  the  divine  expression  of  his 
whole  appearance,  by  his  inspired  confidence,  by  the  heavenly  repose 
and  serenity  which  beamed  in  all  his  features,  to  see  in  him  a  blasphemer 
of  God.  When  in  the  Acts  we  are  told,  that  he  stood  before  them  with 
a  glorified  countenance,  "  as  it  were  the  face  of  an  angel,"  either  many 
members  of  the  Sanhedrim  had  themselves  thus  described  the  impression 
which  his  appearance  at  first  made  upon  them,  or  the  author  of  the 
narrative  has,  according  to  his  own  view  and  in  his  own  language, 
transmitted  what  had  been  related  to  him  concerning  the  profound  im- 
pression made  by  the  personal  presence  of  the  persecuted  disciple  ;  in  no 
case  can  we  be  justified'  in  declaring  his  whole  account  to  have  had  a 
merely  subjective  origin.  The  topics  and  arrangement  of  Stephen's  dis- 
course were  suited  to  confirm  this  impression,  and  to  turn  it  to  good  ac- 
count, to  fix  the  attention  of  his  judges,  and  to  put  their  minds  in  a 
more  favorable  position  towards  the  speaker,  thus  gradually  preparing 
them  for  that  which  he  wished  to  make  the  main  subject  of  his  discourse. 
That  discourse  perfectly  corresponds  with  the  leading  qualities  ascribed 
to  his  character  in  the  Acts.  In  his  frank  manner  of  expressing  what  he 
had  learned  by  the  light  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  we  recognize  the  man  full 
of  the  power  of  faith,  without  the  fear  of  man,  or  deference  to  human 
opinion  ;  in  his  manner  of  constantly  keeping  one  end  in  view,  and  yet, 
instead  of  abruptly  urging  it,  gradually  preparing  his  hearers  for  it,  we 
recognize  the  man  full  of  Christian  prudence. 

The  object  of  Stephen's  discourse  was  not  simple  but  complex  ;  yet 
its  different  aims  stood  in  most  intimate  connection  with  each  other. 
Its  primary  object  was  certainly  apologetical,  but  as  he  forgot  himself 
in  the  subject  with  which  he  was  inspired,  his  apologetic  efforts  relate 
rather  to  the  truths  maintained  by  him  and  impugned  by  his  adversaries, 
than  to  himself.*  Hence,  not  satisfied  with  defending,  he  developed  and 
enforced  the  truths  he  had  proclaimed  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  condemned 
the  carnal  ungodly  temper  of  the  Jews,  which  was  little  disposed  to 
receive  the  truth.  Thus  with  the  apologetic  element,  the  didactic  and 
polemic  were  combined.  Stephen  first  refutes  the  charges  made  against 
him  of  enmity  against  the  people  of  God,  of  contempt  of  their  sacred 
institutions,  and  of  blaspheming  Moses.  He  traces  the  procedure  of  the 
divine  providence,  in  guiding  the  people  of  God  from  the  times  of  their 
progenitors ;  he  notices  the  promises  and  their  progressive  fulfilment,  to 

discourse  before  us  know  what  its  aim  was  from  the  beginning,  yet  it  is  not  clear  that  his 
hearers  could  so  soon  apprehend  it.  And  this  serves  to  explain  how  it  could  happen  that 
they  heard  Stephen  patiently,  till  he  came  to  the  words  in  which  his  Christian  feeling 
expressed  itself  so  powerfully  and  unreservedly,  regardless  of  consequences.  Here  fanati- 
cal fury  broke  forth  ;  they  would  not  listen  any  longer  to  his  blasphemies.  He  was  drag- 
ged out,  and  now  the  punishment  began  which  the  infuriated  people  inflicted  on  him. 
Thus  in  a  just  representation  of  the  connection  of  these  transactions,  we  find  nothing 
which  justifies  the  denial  of  their  historical  truth. 

*  See  on  this  point  the  excellent  remarks  of  Baur,  p.  48,  in  the  treatise  already 
rlluded  to. 


54  CHBISTIAN    CHUECH    IN   PALESTINE. 

the  end  of  all  the  promises,  the  end  of  the  whole  development  of  the 
Theocracy — the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  work  to  be  accomplished 
by  him-  But  with  this  narrative  he  blends  his  charges  against  the 
Jewish  nation.  He  shows  that  their  ingratitude  and  unbelief,  proceeding 
from  a  carnal  mind,  became  more  flagrant  in  proportion  as  the  promises 
were  fulfilled,  or  given  with  greater  fulness  ;  and  their  conduct  in  the 
various  preceding  periods  of  the  development  of  God's  kingdom,  was  a 
specimen  of  the  disposition  they  now  evinced  towards  the  publication  of 
the  gospel.*  The  first  promise  which  God  made  to  the  patriarchs,  was 
that  respecting  the  land  which  he  would  give  to  their  posterity  for  a 
possession,  where  they  were  to  worship  him. 

In  faith  the  patriarchs  went  forth  under  the  constant  guidance  of  God 
himself,  which,  however,  did  not  bring  them  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise.  This  promise  was  brought  to  the  eve  of  its  accomplishment 
by  Moses.  His  divine  call,  the  miracles  God  wrought  for  him  and  by 
him,  are  especially  brought  forward,  and  likewise  the  conduct  of  the 
Jews  while  under  his  guidance,  as  unbelieving,  ungrateful  and  rebellious 
towards  this  highly  accredited  servant  of  God,  through  whom  they  had 
received  such  great  benefits :  and  yet  Moses  was  not  the  end  of  the 
divine  revelation.  His  calling  was  to  point  to  that  prophet  whom  God 
would  raise  up  after  him,  whom  they  were  to  obey  like  himself.  The 
conduct  of  the  Jews  towards  Moses  is  therefore  a  type  of  their  conduct 
towards  that  last  great  prophet  whom  he  announced  and  prefigured. 
The  Jews  gave  themselves  up  to  idolatry,  when  God  first  established 
among  them  by  Moses  a  symbolical  sanctuary  for  his  worship.  This 
sanctuary  was  in  the  strictest  sense  of  divine  origin.  Moses  super- 
intended its  erection  according  to  the  pattern  shown  to  him  by  God,  in 
a  symbolic  higher  manifestation.!  The  sanctuary  Avas  a  movable  one, 
till  at  last  Solomon  was  permitted  to  erect  an  abiding  edifice  for  divine 
worship  on  a  similar  plan.  With  this  historical  survey,  Stephen  con- 
cludes his  argument  against  the  superstitious  reverence  for  the  temple 
felt  by  the  carnally-minded  Jews,  against  their  narrow-hearted  sensuous 
tendency  to  confine  the  essence  of  religion  to  the  temple-worship.  Having 
expressed  this  in  the  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  it  was  a  natural  transi- 

*  In  this  species  of  polemical  discussion,  Stephen  was  a  forerunner  of  Paul.  De  Wette 
justly  notices,  as  a  peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  that  conscience  was  more  alive  among 
them  than  any  other  people;  often,  indeed,  an  accusing  conscience,  the  feeling  of  guilt,  the 
feeling  of  a  high  office  assigned  to  them  from  which  they  cannot,  though  they  would,  be 
released,  the  feeliDg  of  a  schism  between  knowledge  (the  law)  and  the  will,  so  that  sin  ac- 
cumulates and  comes  distinctly  into  view ;  Rom.  v.  20.  See  "  Studien  unci  Kritiken," 
1837,  4th  No.,  p.  1003.  On  this  account,  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation  is  tbe  type 
of  the  history  of  the  race  and  of  men  individually. 

f  Stephen  had,  perhaps,  two  distinct  aims  in  mind,  to  intimate,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  guard  against  idolatry  to  which  the  Jews  were  so  prone,  to 
confine  the  worship  of  God  to  a  fixed  visible  sanctuary,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this 
sanctuary  could  not  communicate  the  divine,  but  could  only  represent  it  in  a  figure,  an 
idea  which  pervades  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


STEPHEST.  55 

tion  to  speak  of  the  essential  nature  of  true  spiritual  worship,  and  of  the 
prophets  who  in  opposition  to  the  stiff-necked,  carnal  dispositions  of  the 
Jews,  had  testified  concerning  it,  and  the  Messiah  by  whom  it  was  to  be 
established  among  the  whole  human  race.  A  vast  prospect  now  opened 
before  him ;  but  he  could  not  complete  the  grand  picture  of  the  theo 
cratic  development,  nor  proceed  even  to  the  limits  he  had  proposed  ;* 
while  contemplating  it,  the  emotions  it  excited  carried  him  away  ;  hig 
holy  indignation  gushed  forth  in  a  torrent  of  rebuke  against  the  ungodly, 
unbelieving,  hypocritical  disposition  of  the  Jews,  whose  conduct  in  refer- 
ence to  the  divine  communications  had  been  the  same  from  the  time  of 
Moses  up  to  that  very  moment.  "  Ye  stiff-necked,  although  boasting  of 
your  circumcision,  yet  who  have  never  received  the  true  circumcision, 
ye  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ear  (who  want  the  disposition  to  feel  and 
to  understand  what  is  divine),  ye  always  withstand  the  workings  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Ye  do  as  your  fathers  did.  As  your  fathers  murdered  the 
prophets  who  predicted  the  appearance  of  the  Holy  One,  so  have  ye 
yourselves  given  Him  up  to  the  Gentiles,  and  thus  are  become  his 
murderers.  Ye  who  boast  of  a  law  given  by  God  through  the  ministry 
of  angels,f  (as  organs  of  making  known  the  divine  will,)  and  yet  are  so 
little  observant  of  this  law  !" 

Till  this  rebuke  wras  uttered,  Stephen  had  been  quietly  heard.  But  as 
soon  as  they  perceived  the  drift  of  his  discourse,  their  blind  zeal  and 
spiritual  pride  were  roused.  He  observed  the  symptoms  of  their  rage, 
but  instead  of  being  terrified  thereby,  he  looked  up  to  heaven,  full  of 
befieving  confidence  in  the  power  of  Him  of  whom  he  testified,  and  saw 
with  a  projjhetic  glance,  in  opposition  to  the  machinations  of  men  against 
the  cause  of  God,  the  glorified  Messiah,  denied  by  these  men,  but  exalted 
to  heaven,  armed  with  divine  power,  and  about  to  conquer  all  who  dared 
to  oppose  his  kingdom.  This  prophetic  view  was  presented  to  him  in 
the  form  of  a  symbolic  vision.  As  he  looked  up  to  heaven  it  appeared 
to  open  before  his  eyes.  In  more  than  earthly  splendor,  there  appeared 
to  him  a  form  of  divine  majesty  ;  he  beheld  Christ  (whose  glorious  image 
was  probably  present  to  him  from  actual  early  recollection)  glorified  and 
enthroned  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Already  in  spirit  raised  to  heaven, 
he  testified  with  full  confidence  of  what  he  beheld.     In  all  periods  of  the 

*  We  must  certainly  maintain  against  Baur  that  Stephen's  discourse  is  left  unfinished, 
that  he  could  not  complete  the  plan  he  had  proposed  ;  that  just  when  he  had  reached  the 
principal  point,  for  which  all  that  went  before  was  preparatory,  he  was  interrupted  ;  un- 
less, perhaps,  the  discourse  as  we  have  received  it,  is  imperfectly  reported. 

f  This  was  confessedly  a  frequent  mode  among  the  Jews  of  marking  the  superhuman 
origin  of  the  law ;  so  that,  according  to  Josephus,  Herod,  in  a  speech  to  the  Jewish  army, 
made  use  of  this  universally  acknowledged  fact,  that  the  Jews  had  received  their  law 
from  God  through  angels,  (<V  uyyiliuv  napu  tov  deov  fiadovruv),  in  order  to  show  how- 
holy  the  ambassadors  sent  to  them  must  be,  who  filled  the  same  office  as  that  of  the  angela 
between  God  and  men;  ayye?iOi—TrpE(jj3eic,  ktjpvkec,  angels=ambassadors,  heralds.  Jo- 
seph. Antiq.  xv.  5,  3.  We  shall  refer  to  the  varied  application  of  this  idea  in  the  section 
on  Doctrine. 


56  THE   CHRISTIAN   CHURCH   IN   PALESTINE. 

church,  a  blind  zeal  for  adherence  to  the  letter  and  ceremonial  services 
has  been  wont  to  interpret  a  highly  spiritual  state,  which  will  not  follow 
the  rules  of  the  reigning  theological  school,  nor  suffer  itself  to  be  confined 
by  ancient  dogmas,  as  mere  fanaticism  or  blasphemy  ;*  and  so  it  was  on 
this  occasion.  The  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  stopped  their  ears,  that 
they  might  not  be  defiled  by  his  blasphemies.  They  threw  themselves 
on  Stephen,  and  dragged  him  out  of  the  city  in  order  to  stone  him  as  a 
blasphemer.  It  was  sentence  and  execution  all  at  once;  an  act  of  vio- 
lence without  regular  judicial  examination  ;  especially  as  according  to  the 
existing  laws,  the  Sanhedrim  could  decide  only  on  disciplinary  punish- 
ment, but  was  not  allowed  to  execute  a  capital  sentence  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  Roman  governor.f  With  the  same  confidence  with 
which  Stephen,  amidst  the  rage  and  fury  of  his  enemies,  saw  the  Saviour 
of  whom  he  testified,  ruling  victorious — with  the  same  confidence  he 
directed  his  eyes  towards  him  in  the  prospect  of  death,  and  said,  "Lord 
Jesus,  receive  my  spirit  !"J  And.  as  he  had  only  Him  before  his  eyes,  it 
was  his  Spirit  which  led  him  to  adopt  the  Saviour's  last  words,  thus 
making  him  a  pattern  in  death,  as  he  had  been  in  life.  He  who,  when 
carried  away  with  holy  zeal  for  the  cause  of  God,  had  so  emphatically 
censured  the  baseness  of  the  Jews,  now  that  their  fury  attacked  his  own 
person,  prayed  only  that  their  sins  might  be  forgiven. 

Thus  we  see  in  the  death  of  Stephen  the  new  development  of  Christian 
truth  apparently  stopped  ;  he  died  a  martyr,  not  only  for  the  truth  of  the 
gospel  in  general,  but  in  particular  for  this  freer  and  wider  application  of 
it,  which  began  with  him  and  seemed  to  expire  with  him.  Yet  from  the 
beginning  it  has  been  the  law  of  the  development  of  the  Christian  life, 
and  will  continue  to  be  down  to  the  last  glorious  result,  which  shall  con- 
summate the  whole  with  the  final  triumph  over  death — that  out  of  death 
a  new  life  conies  forth,  and  martyrdom  for  the  divine  truth,  both  in  its 
general  and  particular  forms,  prepares  for  its  victory.  Such  was  the 
issue  here.  This  first  new  development  of  evangelical  truth  had  to  be 
checked  in  the  germ  in  order  to  shoot  forth  with  greater  vigor,  and  to  a 
wider  extent,  in  the  person  of  Paul ;  and  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  was 

*  Thus,  at  the  Council  of  Constance,  it  was  condemned  as  a  violation  of  ecclesiastical 
subordination,  that  Huss  had  dared  to  appeal  to  Christ. 

f  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  412. 

J  I  can  find  no  reason  whatever  for  recognising  (as  Baur  has  done)  in  Stephen's  man- 
ner of  speaking  and  acting,  instead  of  the  image  of  Christ  as  impressed  by  his  Spirit  on 
his  genuine  disciples,  nothing  but  the  impress  of  the  subjective  fiction  which  makes 
Stephen  a  copy  of  Christ.  To  support  the  latter  view,  it  is  urged  that  such  words  as 
Stephen  used  occur  in  Luke  xxiii.  34  and  46,  and  that  this  agreement  could  not  be  merely 
accidental,  but  points  to  one  source.  But  I  do  not  perceive  that  the  literal  agreement 
which  exists  here,  can  only  be  so  explained,  since  it  may  be  very  naturally,  accounted  for 
on  the  ground  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  which  expressed  itself  in  the  words  of  Christ 
transmitted  to  us  by  Luke,  caused  Stephen  to  express  himself  in  the  same  way.  That 
false  testimony  against  Christ,  of  which  (Baur  would  have  us  believe)  the  false  testimony 
against  Stephen  is  an  imitation,  doea  not  in  so  many  words  appear  in  Luke. 


STEPHEN.  57 

a~  necessary  step  in  the  process.  If  this  new  development  had  been  fully 
exhibited  at  this  time,  the  other  publishers  of  the  gospel  would  have  been 
found  unprepared  for  it,  and  not  yet  capable  of  receiving  it.  But  in  the 
meantime,  these  persons,  by  a  variety  of  concurrent  circumstances,  were 
to  be  prepared  in  a  natural  way,  under  the  constant  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  for  this  deeper  insight  into  the  truth. 

The  martyrdom  of  Stephen  was  important  in  its  direct  effects  for  the 
spreading  of  the  faith,  since  it  might  be  expected  that,  under  the  imme- 
diate impression  made  by  the  sight  of  such  a  witness,  and  of  such  a  death, 
many  minds  not  altogether  unsusceptible,  nor  altogether  deluded  by  the 
power  of  error,  would  be  led  to  the  faith  ;  but  yet  the  indirect  conse- 
quences were  still  more  important,  by  which  the  third  violent  persecu- 
tion was  raised  against  the  new  church  at  Jerusalem.  This  persecution 
must  have  been  more  severe  and  extensive  than  the  former ;  for  by  the 
manner  in  which  Stephen  entered  into  conflict  with  Pharisaism,  he  had 
roused  to  hostility  against  the  teachers  of  the  new  doctrine  the  sect  of 
the  Pharisees,  who  had  the  most  credit  with  the  common  people,  and 
were  powerful  and  active,  and  ready  to  leave  no  means  untried  to  attain 
their  object  whatever  it  might  be.  The  persecution  proceeding  from 
this  quarter  would  naturally  mark  as  its  special  victims  those  who  were 
colleagues  in  office  wTith  Stephen  as  deacons,  and  who  resembled  him  in 
their  Hellenistic  origin  and  education.  It  was,  however,  the  occasion  of 
spreading  the  gospel  beyond  the  bounds  of  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and 
even  among  the  Gentiles.  With  this  progressive  outward  development 
of  the  gospel  was  also  connected  its  progressive  inward  development, 
the  consciousness  of  the  independence  and  intrinsic  capability  of  Chris- 
tianity as  a  doctrine  destined  without  foreign  aid  to  impart  divine  life  and 
salvation  to  all  men,  among  all  nations  without  distinction.  As  we 
have  frequently  seen  that  the  hostilities  waged  against  a  truth  when 
first  brought  to  light,  with  which  its  publishers  have  had  to  contend, 
have  very  much  contributed  to  render  their  consciousness  of  it  more 
clear  and  complete,  and  to  make  them  better  acquainted  with  the  conse- 
quences that  flow  from  it, — so  here  also  the  opposition  of  Pharisaical 
Judaism  must  have  had  a  powerful  and  beneficial  influence  in  developing 
freer  views  of  the  Gospel  among  the  Hellenists. 

Here,  then,  we  stand  on  the  boundary-line  of  a  new  era,  both  of  the 
outward  and  inward  development  of  Christianity. 


BOOK   II 


TRANSITION  FROM    THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

AMONG  THE   JEWS,   TO   ITS  DEVELOPMENT   AMONG 

HEATHEN  NATIONS. 


CHAPTEE    I. 


THE   FIRST    SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY    FROM   THE    CHURCH    AT  JERUSALEM 
TO    OTHER    PARTS,    AND    ESPECIALLY    AMONG   THE    HEATHEN. 

Samaria,  which  had  been  the  scene  of  Christ's  personal  ministry,  was 
the  first  place  out  of  Judea  where  the  gospel  was  preached  by  his 
apostles.*  Though  the  people  of  this  country  received  no  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  sacred  excepting  the  Pentateuch,  yet  from  this  portion 
of  the  Scriptures  they  had  learned  to  exercise  faith  in  a  Messiah  who 
was  to  come ;  on  him  they  placed  their  hopes,  as  the  personage  who  was 
to  bring  back  all  things  to  their  right  relations,  and  thus  to  be  the  univer- 
sal Restorer.f  Political  considerations  did  not  with  them,  as  with  the 
Jews,  stand  in  the  way  of  their  right  apprehension  of  the  idea  of  the 
Messiah,  an  idea  specially  clung  to  by  them  in  their  mental  and  bodily 
misery ;  but  they  were  deficient  in  that  right  understanding  of  it 
which  could  only  be  obtained  from  its  progressive  development  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  nor  could  the  deep  feeling  of  the  need  of  redemption 
and  restoration  be  clearly  developed  among  them.  A  lively,  but  indefi- 
nite, obscure  longing  of  the  religious  nature  always  exposes  men  to 
manifold  and  most  dangerous  delusions,  and  in  times  of  vague  but  earnest 
inquiry,  various  kinds  of  extravagance  are  likely  to  prevail.  This  was 
the  case  with  the  Samaritans.  As  at  that  time  in  other  parts  of  the 
East,  a  similar  indefinite  longing  after  a  new  communication  from  Heaven 
— an  ominous  restlessness  in  the  minds  of  men,  such  as  generally  pre- 
cedes great  changes  in  the  history  of  mankind,  was  diffused  abroad  ;  so 
there  were  not  wanting  persons  to  misdirect  and  deceive  this  longing, 
while  they  falsely  promised  it  satisfaction.  Such  were  the  Goetse,  in 
whom  was  to  be  found  a  mixture  of  unconscious  self-deception  and  in- 
tentional falsehood ;  with  ideas,  proceeding  from  an  amalgamation  of 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  180  ff. 

f  an«n  or  annrj.     See  Gesenius's  Weilinachtsprogramm  De  Samaritanorum  Theoh 
gia,  (of  the  year  1822),  and  his  Carmina  Samaritana,  p.  15. 


SAMARIA,    SIMON   THE    SORCERER  59 

Jewish,  Oriental,  and  Grecian  elements,  and  with  mystical,  sounding 
formulas  exactly  suited  to  a  vague  religious  longing,  they  made  great  pre- 
tensions, boasting  of  a  special  connexion  with  the  invisible  world  ;  and 
by  taking  advantage  of  the  unknown  powers  of  nature,  and  by  various 
arts  of  conjuration,  they  excited  the  astonishment  of  credulous  people, 
and  obtained  credit  for  their  boastful  pretensions.  Such  persons  found 
at  that  time  an  easy  access  to  the  Samaritans  in  their  state  of  mental 
excitement.  To  this  class  of  men  belonged  a  Jewish  or  Samaritan  Goes, 
named  Simon,  who,  by  his  pretended  magical  powers,  so  fascinated  the 
people,  that  they  said  he  must  be  more  than  man,  that  he  was  the  great 
power  which  emanated  from  the  invisible  God,  by  which  the  universe 
had  been  brought  forth,  now  appearing  on  earth  in  a  bodily  form.* 

The  idea  of  such  an  Intelligence  emanating  from  God,  as  proceeding 
from  the  first  act  of  the  divine  self-revelation,  the  first  link  in  the  chain 
of  developed  life,  prevailed  just  at  that  time  in  various  oriental- Alexan- 
drian and  Alexandrian-oriental  forms.  The  idea  also  of  the  incarnation  of 
higher  intelligences  generally,  and  of  this  highest  intelligence  in  par- 
ticular, was  by  no  means  foreign  to  the  notions  prevalent  in  those  parts. 
We  can  hardly  consider  everything  of  this  kind  as  a  mere  copy  of  the 
Christian  idea  of  the  incarnation,  or  recognise  in  it  a  sign  of  the  trans- 
forming power  of  the  new  Christian  spirit  over  the  intellectual  world  ; 
for  we  find  earlier  traces  of  such  ideas.f  But  the  prevalence  of  such 
ideas  proves  nothing  against  the  originality  of  Christianity,  or  of  any 
of  its  particular  doctrines.  On  the  one  hand,  we  should  not  refuse  to 
recognise  what  could  grow  from  the  germs  already  given  in  the  Old 
Testament,  which  was  the  preparative  covering  of  the  New,  or  from  its 
spirit  and  leading  ideas,  which  were  directed  to  Christ  as  the  end  of  all 
the  divine  revelations.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  recollect,  that  as  the 
new  creation  effected  by  Christianity  was  followed  by  a  mighty  agitation 

*  Possibly  the  words  of  which  this  Goes  made  use,  are  contained  in  the  apocryphal 
writings  of  the  Sirnonians;  see  Jerome's  Commentary  on  Matt.  xxiv.  "  Ego  sum  sermo 
Dei  (6  Xoyog),  ego  sum  speciosus,  ego  paracletus,"  "  I  am  the  word  of  God  (6  loyoc),  I 
am  the  illustrious,  I  am  the  Advocate," — (according  to  Philo,  the  Logos  is  Advocate, 
(irapuKlrjTog,  Iketjic,)  since  by  the  divine  reason  revealing  itself  in  the  phenomenal  world 
(the  votjtov  napudeiyfia  rov  koo/iov)  the  connexion  between  God  and  the  phenomena  is 
effected,  what  is  defective  in  the  latter  is  supplied;  De  Vita  Mosis,  1.  iii.  673  ;  De  Migra- 
tions Abrahami,p.  406,)— "ego  omnipotens,  ego  omnia  Dei,"  "  I  am  omnipotent,  I,  all  things 
of  God  "  (according  to  Philo,  the  Logos  is  the  //erpoTroAif  naauv  tUv  6vvu/ieuv  tov  deov, 
chief  of  all  the  powers  of  God).  Still  this  is  uncertain,  for  the  sect  of  the  Sirnonians  migh 
easily  borrow  these  expressions,  as  they  had  borrowed  other  things,  from  Christianity,  an 
attribute  them  to  Simon. 

f  In  a  Jewish  apocryphal  writing,  the  ■npoaevxn  'Iw<t^,  the  patriarch  Jacob  is  repre- 
sented as  an  incarnation  of  the  highest  spirit  living  in  the  presence  of  the  divine  Original 
Being,  whose  true  divine  name  was  "  Israel,  man  beholding  God,"  'lapafjl,  dvijp  opuv  debv, 
"the  first-born  of  every  living  thing  existing  by  God,"  TtpuToyovog  Ttuvrog  £6ov  faovfievov 
vnb  deov,  (similar  expressions  to  those  used  by  Philo  respecting  the  Logos),  "  who  was  be- 
gotten before  all  angels,  the  first  minister  in  the  presence  of  God,"  6  ev  npuaunu  deov 
TieiTovpyoc  izpurog.     See  Origen,  t.  ii.     §  25. 


60  FIRST    SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

both  of  kindred  and  hostile  minds,  so  also  it  was  preceded  by  the  strong 
excitement  of  such  minds  as  were  unconsciously  anticipating  and  yearn- 
ing after  some  great  approaching  crisis,  by  a  presentiment  that  there 
would  be  such  a  revelation  of  the  spiritual  world  as  had  not  yet  been 
made  to  the  human  race.  And  from  a  teleological  point  of  view,  we  re- 
cognise Christianity  as  the  final  aim  of  Divine  Wisdom  in  the  course  of 
human  development,  when  we  at  this  period  find  the  spiritual  atmosphere 
surcharged  with  ideas,  which  served  to  prepare  a  more  susceptible  soil 
for  Christianity  and  its  leading  doctrines,  and  to  form  a  back-ground  for 
the  exhibition  of  the  divine  transactions  which  it  announced. 

Philip  the  Deacon,  being  compelled  to  leave  Jerusalem  by  the  perse- 
cution which  ensued  on  Stephen's  death,  was  induced  to  take  refuge  in 
Samaria.  He  came  to  a  city  of  that  country,*  where  Simon  was  uni- 
versally esteemed,  and  looked  upon  with  wonder  and  reverence  as  a 
supernatural  being.  When  he  saw  the  people  so  devoted  to  a  destruct- 
ive delusion,  he  felt  impelled  by  his  zeal  for  the  cause  of  God  and  the  sal- 
vation of  men,  to  impart  that  to  them  which  alone  could  give  true  satisfac- 
tion to  their  spiritual  necessities.  But  men  in  this  situation  were  not 
yet  susceptible  of  the  spiritual  power  of  truth  ;  it  was  needful  to  pave 
a  way  to  their  hearts  by  preparatory  impressions  on  the  senses.  As 
Philip,  by  divine  aid,  performed  things  which  Simon  with'  all  his  magical 
arts  could  not  effect,  especially  healing  the  sick  (which  he  accomplished 
by  prayer  and  calling  on  the  name  of  Christ),  he  attracted  the  attention 
of  men  to  Him  in  whose  name  and  power  he  had  effected  such  things  for 
them,  and  in  their  sight ;  he  then  took  occasion  to  discourse  more  fully 
of  Him,  his  works,  and  the  kingdom  that  he  had  established  among  men, 
and  by  degrees  the  divine  power  of  truth  laid  hold  of  their  hearts 
When  Simon  saw  his  followers  deserting  him,  and  was  himself  astounded 
at  the  works  performed  by  Philip,  he  thought  it  best  to  acknowledge  a 
power  so  superior  to  his  own.  He  therefore  professed  himself  a  disciple 
of  Philip,  and  was,  like  the  rest,  baptized  by  him ;  but  as  the  sequel 
proves,  we  cannot  infer  from  this  that  the  publication  of  the  gospel  had 
made  an  impression  on  his  heart ;  it  seems  most  probable  that  he  inter- 
pi-eted  what  had  occurred  according  to  his  own  views.  The  miracles 
performed  by  Philip  had  led  him  to  the  conviction,  that  he  was  in  league 
with  some  superhuman  spirit ;  he  looked  on  baptism  as  an  initiation  into 
the  compact,  and  hoped  that,  by  forming  such  a  compact,  he  might  ob- 
tain an  interest  in  such  higher  power,  and  use  it  for  his  own  ends  ;  he 
wished,  in  short,  to  combine  the  new  magic  or  theurgy  with  his  own. 
As  we  have  already  remarked,  it  was  a  standing  regulation  in  primitive 

*  It  is  not  quite  clear  that  the  city  of  Samaria  is  intended  ;  for  there  is  no  reason,  with 
gome  expositors  of  Acts  viii.  5,  to  consider  the  genitive  as  the  sign  of  apposition.  As  in 
the  whole  chapter  Samaria  is  the  designation  of  the  country,  it  is  most  natural  to  under- 
stand it  is  so  in  this  passage.  In  the  14th  verse,  by  Samaria  is  certainly  meant  the 
country,  and  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  absolutely  the  whole  land  had  received  the 
gospel. 


SAMARIA,    SIMON    THE    SORCERER.  tJl 

times,  that  all  those  who  professed  to  believe  the  announcement  of  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  should  be  baptized.  And  since  Simon  now  renounced  his 
magical  arts,  which  were  quite  out  of  repute,  there  was  no  reason  why 
he  should  be  rejected. 

It  must  have  occasioned  great  surprise  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem  to 
hear  that  Christianity  had  first  gained  an  entrance  among  a  people  who 
were  not  considered  as  belonging  to  the  theocratic  nation.  Not  that  any 
such  scruples  could  be  felt,  as  were  afterward  excited  at  the  spread  of  the 
Gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  since  the  Samaritans,  in  common  with  the 
Jews,  practised  circumcision  and  observed  the  Law  of  Moses.  Moreover, 
Christ  himself  had  set  the  example  by  his  personal  ministry  among  the 
Samaritans,  and  had  so  far  counteracted  the  prejudice  against  them. 
Yet  the  disunion  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  was  so  great  that 
the  former  could  not  view  without  some  mistrust  the  formation  of  a 
church  among  the  latter,  and  believed  that  they  must  ascertain  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Gospel  operated  among  them  before  they  could  acknow- 
ledge the  new  believers  as  Christian  brethren.  There  must  have  been  a 
special  reason  for  the  mission  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  John  to  Samaria. 
If  we  were  to  infer  the  object  of  their  mission  from  the  consequences  that 
followed  it, — as  if  these  gifts  of  the  Spirit  could  not  be  imparted  by  a 
deacon,  but  required  the  superior  agency  of  the  apostles, — we  should  pro- 
ceed on  an  ungrounded  supposition  ;  and  to  infer  the  design  from  the 
consequences,  is,  as  is  clear,  always  very  uncertain.  With  much  greater 
right  we  may  suppose,  that  a  kind  of  mistrust  was  the  cause  of  this 
mission.  This  mistrust  must  have  related  either  to  those  among  whom 
Philip  labored,  or  to  himself  the  laborer.  It  might  certainly  be  the  lat- 
ter, as  Baur  supposes, — a  consequence  of  the  continually  increasing 
opposition  between  the  Christians  of  Palestinian  and  those  of  Hellenistic 
descent  and  education,  a  trace  that  the  old  church  could  not  fully  trust 
the  freer  mode  of  thinking  among  the  Hellenistic  preachers,  which  already 
began  to  be  growing  out  of  Christianity.  But  with  greater  certainty 
we  are  justified  in  regarding  this  mission  as  owing  to  the  national  dis- 
trust felt  towards  the  Samaritans.  Both  grounds  of  mistrust  might  in- 
deed be  blended  together,  yet  we  find  in  the  narrative  no  point  of  con- 
nexion for  the  first.  At  all  events  it  is  evident,  that  the  manner  in 
which  the  Gospel  gained  entrance  among  the  Samaritans  must  have  ap- 
peared to  the  two  apostles  as  defective.  Jesus  had  indeed  been  acknow- 
ledged as  the  Messiah,  and  baptism  had  been  administered  in  his  name, 
but  the  believers  as  yet  knew  nothing  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  what  this 
might  be  could  only  be  known  from  inward  experience,  and  this  was  still 
something  foreign  to  the  Samaritans.  They  had  received  the  baptism 
of  water  without  receiving  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  The  cause  of  this 
may  be  traced  to  the  manner  in  which  they  became  believers  ;  for  ac- 
cording to  the  universal  law  of  the  development  of  the  Christian  life,  the 
effects  of  faith  are  conditioned  by  its  quality,  and  this  again,  by  the 
mode  of  its  origination.     Among  the  Samaritans,  living  faith  in  the  Re- 


62  THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    IN    PALESTINE. 

deemer  appeai-s  to  have  been  still  wanting,  since  it  was  not  a  feeling  of 
the  need  of  redemption  founded  in  the  consciousness  of  sin  that  had  led 
them  to  believe  ;  their  faith  does  not  yet  appear  to  have  proceeded  from 
the  right  religious  and  moral  principle.  It  was  at  first  in  their  minds 
only  an  undefined  and  obscure  longing  after  fresh  and  higher  revelations, 
and  this  longing  was  still  more  perverted  from  its  true  aim  by  the  de- 
ceptive arts  of  the  Goes,  Simon,  which,  from  the  partial  satisfaction  they 
gave,  led  them  still  further  astray.  The  superiority  of  Philip,  which 
was  evinced  in  his  works,  had  moved  them  afterwards  to  believe  him 
rather  than  Simon,  to  place  confidence  in  his  words  rather  than  in  Simon's. 
Still  this  was  a  faith  which  proceeded  from  impressions  on  the  senses,  and 
depended  on  the  person  of  him  whom  they  had  beheld  performing  such 
wonderful  works.  What  Philip  announced  to  them,  and  they  had  been 
moved  by  outward  appearances  to  acknowledge  as  true,  still  remained  to 
them  something  external.  The  Christ  whom  he  preached  was  to  them 
only  an  outward  object  of  faith,  and  had  not  yet  passed  into  their  inner 
life.  The  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  still  something  foreign  which 
astonished  them  in  its  effects  produced  through  another  person.  They  still 
lacked  an  individual,  independent  divine  life.  Hence  they  could  not  yet 
understand  what  the  Holy  Ghost  might  be.  Certainly  the  two  apostles 
would  perceive  that  what  Philip  had  effected  was  only  the  beginning, 
and  that  still  more  must  take  place,  in  order  to  found  a  true  Christian 
church. 

We  have  not  a  full  account  in  the  Acts  of  what  was  done  by  Peter 
and  John,  but  simply  the  general  results.  No  doubt  these  apostles  car- 
ried on  the  work  of  Philip  by  preaching  and  prayer.  After  such  a  pre- 
paration, the  believers  were  assembled,  and  the  apostles  prayed  that 
Christ  might  glorify  himself  in  them,  as  in  all  believers,  by  marks  of  the 
communication  of  divine  life,  employing  the  usual  sign  of  Christian  con- 
secration, the  laying  on  of  hands.  Manifestations  now  followed  similar 
to  those  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  believers  were  thus  recognised 
and  attested  to  be  a  Christian  church,  standing  in  an  equal  rank  with  the 
first  church  at  Jerusalem.  But  Simon  was  naturally  incapable  of  under- 
standing the  spiritual  connexion  of  these  manifestations  ;  he  saw  in  all 
of  them  merely  the  workings  of  magical  forms  and  charms,  a  magic 
differing  not  in  nature  but  only  in  degree  from  what  he  practised  him- 
self. Hence  he  imagined  that  the  apostles  might  communicate  these 
magical  powers  to  him  also,  by  virtue  of  which  all  those  on  whom  he  laid 
hands  would  become  filled  with  divine  power,  and  with  this  view  he 
offered  them  money.  Peter  spurned  this  proposal  with  abhorrence,  and 
now  first  saw  in  its  true  light  the  real  character  of  Simon,  who,  in 
joining  himself  to  believers,  had  pretended  to  be  what  he  was  not. 
Peter's  terrible  rebuke  presents  him  to  us  as  a  faithful  preacher  of  the 
gospel,  insisting  most  impressively  on  the  supreme  importance  of  dis- 
position  in  everything  which  is  imparted  by  Christianity,  in  direct  op- 
position to  the  art  of  magic,  which  disregards  the  necessary  connexion 


SAMARIA,    SIMON   THE    SORCERER.  63 

of  the  divine  and  supernatural  with  the  disposition  of  the  heart,  drags 
them  down  into  the  circle  of  the  natural,  and  attempts  to  appropriate  to 
itself  divine  power  by  means  of  something  else  than  that  which  is  allied 
to  it  in  human  nature,  and  is  the  only  possible  point  of  connexion  for  it.* 
These  were  Peter's  words  :  "  Thy  gold,  with  which  thou  attemptest  tc 
traffic  in  impiety,  perish  with  thee.  Do  not  deceive  thyself,  as  if  with 
this  disposition  thou  couldst  have  any  part  in  what  is  promised  to  believ- 
ers. Thou  hast  no  share  in  this  matter,f  for  God,  who  sees  what  is 
within,  is  not  deceived  by  thy  hypocritical  professions.  Before  his  eyes 
thy  intentions  are  manifest.  With  sincere  repentance  for  such  wicked- 
ness, pray  to  God  that  he  would  be  pleased  to  forgive  thee  this  Avicked 
design."  This  rebuke  made  a  great  impression  at  the  time  on  Simon's 
conscience,  inclined  more  to  superstition  than  to  faith,  and  awakened  a 
feeling  not  of  repentance  for  the  sinfulness  of  his  disposition,  but  of  ap- 
prehension of  the  divine  vengeance.  He  entreated  the  apostles  that 
they  would  pray  to  the  Lord  for  him,  that  what  they  had  threatened 
him  with  might  not  come  to  pass. 

As  is  usual  with  such  sudden  impressions  on  the  senses,  the  effect  on 
Simon  was  only  transient,  for  all  the  further  notices  we  have  of  him  show 
that  he  soon  returned  to  his  former  courses.  About  ten  or  twenty 
years  later,  we  meet  with  a  Simon  in  the  company  of_  Felix,  the  Roman 
Procurator  of  Palestine,  so  strikingly  resembling  this  man,  that  we  are 
tempted  to  consider  them  as  identical.  J     The  latter  Simon  appears  as  an 

*  The  poetical  fancies  of  Christian  antiquity,  which  make  Peter  the  representative  of 
the  principle  of  simple  faith  in  revelation,  and  Simon  the  representative  of  the  magical  and 
theosophic  tendency  in  the  human  mind,  have  a  great  truth  at  their  basis.  But  the  nar- 
rative in  the  Acts  is  clearly  distinguished  by  the  genuine  historical  impress  from  all  those 
fancies,  so  that  no  one,  unless  his  mind  be  so  far  perverted  as  to  have  lost  all  perception 
of  the  difference  between  fiction  and  historical  reality,  can  fail  to  recognise  it. 

f  I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  understand  %6yog  (Acts  viii.  21)  in  the  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  «iS*i  =  fi'ipa,  (thing  spoken  of,  matter,)  and  suppose  that  Peter  only  told  Simon 
that  he  could  have  no  share  in  that  thing,  in  that  higher  power  which  he  hankered  after. 
In  this  general  sense,  fitifia  is  indeed  used  in  the  New  Testament,  but  not  the  more 
definite  term  ?M-yog.  And  according  to  this  interpretation,  Peter  would  say  less  than  the 
context  requires;  for  looking  at  the  connexion  of  v.  21  with  20  and  22,  it  is  plain,  he  did 
not  merely  say,  that  Simon  with  such  a  disposition  was  excluded  from  participating  in 
this  higher  power,  but  also,  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  that  he  was  thereby  bringing  con- 
demnation on  himself.  Hence  we  understand  the  word  loyog  in  the  common  New  Testa- 
ment meaning  of  divine  doctrine — "  the  doctrine  or  truth  announced  by  us" — at  the  same 
time  including  by  synecdoche,  all  that  a  person  would  be  authorized  to  receive  by  the 
appropriation  of  this  doctrine.  I  am  not  convinced  by  what  Meyer  in  his  commentary, 
p.  123,  urges  against  this  interpretation,  that  it  is  at  variance  with  the  connexion,  in  which 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  the  doctrine.  For  in  the  mind  of  the  speaker,  the  power  of 
working  miracles  could  not  be  separated  from  the  publication  of  the  gospel  and  faith  in  it ; 
and  as  Simon  in  the  disposition  of  his  mind  was  far  from  the  gospel,  and  could  stand  in 
no  sort  of  fellowship  with  it,  it  followed  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  he  could  have  no  share 
in  the  ability  to  work  such  miracles. 

\  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  the  difference  of  country,  for  the  Simon  to  whom  we  refpr, 
and  whom  Josephus  mentionn  (Antiq.  Book  xx.  ch.  vii.  §  2),  was  a  Jew  from  Cyprus ; 


64  FIRST   SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

unprincipled  magician,*  to  whom  all  persons,  whatever  their  character, 
were  welcome,  provided  they  gave  credit  to  his  enchantments.  With 
equal  arrogance,  he  disclaimed  all  respect  for  the  ancient  forms  of  relig- 
ion, and  for  the  laws  of  morality.  He  was  a  confidant  of  the  Roman 
procurator  Felix,  and  therefore  could  never  have  opposed  his  vicious 
inclinations,  but  on  the  contrary  he  made  his  magic  subservient  to  their 
gratification  ;  he  thus  bound  Felix  more  closely  to  himself,  as  a  single 
example  will  show.  The  immoral  Felix  had  indulged  a  passion  for 
Drusilla,  sister  of  King  Herod  Agrippa,  and  wife  of  King  Azizus  of 
Emesa,  a  Jewish  proselyte.  Simon  allowed  himself  to  be  the  tool  of 
Fejix,  for  gratifying  his  unlawful  desires.  He  persuaded  Drusilla  that 
by  his  superhuman  power  he  could  ensure  great  happiness  for  her,  pro- 
vided she  married  Felix,  and  managed  to  overcome  her  scruples  of  con- 
science against  marrying  a  heathen.  The  character  of  this  Simon  is 
stamped  on  the  .ater  theosophic  goetic  sect  of  the  Simonians,  whose 
tenets  were  a  mixture  of  Oriental,  Jewish,  Samaritan,  and  Grecian  reli- 
gious elements.  The  germ  of  their  principles  may  be  plainly  traced  back 
to  this  Simon,  though  we  cannot  attribute  to  him  the  complete  system 
of  this  sect  as  it  existed  in  the  second  century. 

The  two  apostles  returned  again  to  Jerusalem,  and  as  what  *bey  had 
witnessed  convinced  them  of  the  susceptibility  of  the  Samaritans  for  re- 
ceiving the  gospel,  they  availed  themselves  of  the  opportunity  of  pub- 
lishing it  in  all  the  parts  of  the  country  through  which  they  passed. 
But  Philip  extended  his  missionary  journey  further,  and  became  the  in- 
strument of  bringing  the  first  seeds  of  the  gospel  into  Ethiopia,  (the 
kingdom  of  Candace  at  Meroe,)  though,  as  far  as  our  knowledge  of  his- 
tory goes,f  without  any  important  consequences.  But,  what  is  more 
deserving  of  notice,  he  published  the  gospel  in  the  cities  of  Palestine,  on 
the  southern  and  northern  coasts  of  the  Mediterranean,  till  at  last,  pro- 
bably after  a  considerable  time,  he  settled  at  Csesarea  Stratonis,  where 


but  Simon  Magus,  according  to  Justin  Martyr,  himself  a  native  of  Samaria,  was  born  at  a 
place  called  Gittim,  in  Samaria.  Yet  this  evidenco  is  not  decisive,  for  a  tradition  so  long 
after  the  time,  though  prevalent  in  the  country  where  Simon  made  his  appearance,  might 
be  erroneous.  What  has  been  said  since  I  wrote  the  above,  against  the  identity  of  the 
two  Simons,  is  not  demonstrative,  though  I  willingly  allow,  that  since  the  name  of  Simon 
was  a  very  common  one  among  the  Jews,  and  such  itinerant  Goetas  were  not  seldom 
to  be  met  with,  the  time  also  not  perfectly  agreeing,  the  identity  must  be  left  rather 
doubtful. 

*  /myov  elvai  cKijnTofievov,  says  Josephus. 

\  It  is  still  a  question  whether  the  introduction  of  Christianity  was  not  partially  made 
before  the  mission  of  Frumentius,from  another  direction,  and  in  a  different  part  of  Ethi- 
opia ;  whether  many  things  in  the  doctrine  and  usages  of  the  present  Abyssinian  church, 
with  which  we  have  been  better  acquainted  by  means  of  Gobat's  Journal,  do  not  indicate 
a  Jewish-Christian  origin.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  the  late  Rettig  has  brought  forward 
these  questions  in  the  "  Studien  und  Kritiken."  Perhaps  intercourse  with  that  ancient 
church  will  open  to  us  some  sources  of  information  for  answering  them. 


THE     CHRISTIAN*     CHURCH     IX     PALESTINE.  65 

on  his  arrival  he  found  a  Christian  society  already  formed,  which  he 
enlarged  and  built  up  in  the  faith. 

Though  the  Christians  of  Jewish  descent,  who  were  driven  by  perse- 
cution from  Jerusalem  were,  doubtless,  by  that  event  led  to  spread  the 
gospel  even  in  Syria  and  the  neighboring  districts,  yet  their  labors  were 
confined  to  Jews.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Hellenists,  such  as  Philip  and 
others,  who  originally  came  from  Cyprus  and  Cyrene,  made  their  way 
among  the  Gentiles*  also,  to  whom  they  were  allied  by  language  and 
education,  which  was  not  the  case  with  the  other  Jews.  They  presented 
them  with  the  gospel  independent  of  the  Mosaic  law,  without  attempting 
to  make  them  Jews  before  they  became  Christians.  Thus  the  principles 
held  by  the  enlightened  Stephen,  the  truths  for  which,  in  part,  he  had 
suffered  martyrdom,  were  by  them  first  brought  into  practice  and  real- 
ized. But  if  now  in  this  way,  independently  of  the  exertions  of  the 
apostles  in  Judea,  and  the  development  of  Christianity  in  a  Jewish  form, 
churches  had  been  raised  of  purely  Hellenistic  materials  among  the 
heathen,  free  altogether  from  Judaism,  and  if  Paul  had  then  appeared  to 
extend  and  confirm  this  tendency  still  farther,  the  consequence  might 
have  been,  that  the  older  apostles  would  have  maintained  with  greater 
stiffness  their  former  convictions,  in  opposition  to  this  freer  direction 
of  Christianity,  and  thus,  by  the  overweight  of  human  peculiarities  in  the 
first  publishers  of  the  gospel,  a  violent  and  irreconcilable  opposition 
might  have  divided  the  church  into  two  hostile  contending  parties.  It 
could  not  have  happened  otherwise  if  the  germinating  differences,  left 
altogether  to  themselves,  as  in  later  times,  had  been  so  developed  that  at 
last  each  must  exclude  the  other  ;  and  the  idea  of  a  universal  church, 
prevailing  by  its  higher  unity  over  all  human  differences,  could  never 
have  been  realized.  But  this  disturbing  influence,  with  which  the  self- 
seeking  and  one-sided  bias  of  human  nature  threatened  from  the  begin- 
ning to  destroy  the  unity  of  the  divine  work,  was  counteracted  by  the 
still  mightier  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  never  allows  human  dif- 
ferences to  develop  themselves  to  such  an  extreme,  but  is  able  to  main- 
tain unity  in  manifoldness.  We  may  distinctly  recognise  the  Providence 
of  Divine  Wisdom — which  gives  scope  to  the  free  agency  of  man,  but 
knows  exactly  when  it  is  needful,  for  the  success  of  the  divine  work,  to 
impart  its  immediate  illumination — if  we  observe  that  when  the  apostles 
needed  a  wider  development  of  their  Christian  views  for  the  exercise  of 
their  calling,  and  the  want  of  such  development  might  have  been  highly 
injurious,  just  at  that  precise  moment  the  needed  insight  wras  imparted 
to  them,  by  a  memorable  coincidence  of  an  internal  revelation  with  a 
train  of  outward  circumstances.  The  Apostle  Peter  was  the  chosen 
instrument  on  this  occasion. 


*  In  Acts  xi.  20,  the  common  reading  kXKi\vioTas  is  evidently  to  be  rejected,  as  formed 
from  a  false  gloss,  and  the  reading  which  refers  to  the  Gentiles  (kXkr\va<;)  must  be  substi- 
tuted as  undoubtedly  correct. 

6 


66  FIRST   SPREAD   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

But  before  we  proceed  any  further,  we  must  take  notice  of  what  has. 
been  urged  from  two  different  directions  against  the  credibility  of  the 
aceount  in  the  Acts  which  we  here  follow,  and  against  the  internal  pro- 
bability of  the  whole  narrative.*  The  position  which  Peter  afterwards 
occupied  in  relation  to  Paul  and  to  the  preaching  of  Paul  among  the 
heathen,  must  testify,  it  is  said,  against  his  having  attained  to  views 
similar  to  those  of  Paul,  in  a  peculiar,  independent  manner.  It  is 
thought  that  Peter's  vacillation  as  exhibited  in  his  conference  with  Paul 
at  Antioch,  would  be  inexplicable  on  such  a  supposition,  but  that  every 
difficulty  will  be  removed,  if  we  suppose  that  Peter  was  forced  from 
without,  in  opposition  to  his  own  convictions  and  mode  of  thinking,  by 
the  personal  superiority  of  Paul,  and  the  undeniable  facts  of  his  minis- 
try, to  admit  an  independent  development  of  Christianity  among  the 
Gentiles. 

But  is  it,  then,  really  probable,  that  men  who  were  wedded  to  the 
mode  of  thinking  which  made  participation  in  the  salvation  of  the  Mes- 
siah dependent  on  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  should  allow  them- 
selves so  easily  to  be  moved,  solely  and  entirely  by  the  mental  supe- 
riority of  an  individual  who,  from  the  difference  between  his  own  stand 
point  and  theirs,  must  have  been  the  less  fitted  to  operate  upon  them, 
or  by  an  adduction  of  facts  which  testified  of  the  similar  effects  of  faith 
in  Gentiles  and  Jews,  to  the  admission  of  a  principle  which  ran  counter 
to  the  whole  system  of  their  deeply-rooted  convictions  ?  We  know  full 
well,  how  hard  it  is  to  conquer  inveterate  prejudices  by  an  appeal  to  ex- 
ternal facts — how  strongly  men  are  disposed  to  explain  away,  or  to  in-^ 
terpret  in  their  own  favor,  all  facts  which  may  testify  against  their  pre- 
judices. And  would  a  man  of  Peter's  strongly  marked  individuality, 
be  the  kind  of  person  to  be  induced  to  give  up  his  principles,  by  an  in- 
fluence wholly  external,  without  any  immediate  point  of  connexion  in  his 
own  course  of  development?  It  will  be  a  far  more  natural  explanation, 
if  we  can  show  a  preparation  for  such  an  acknowledgment  on  the  part 
of  Peter  through  the  medium  of  his  own  inwrai*d  experience.  The  first 
point  of  connexion  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  truth  announced  by  Christ, 
and  in  his  words,  which  led  to  an  apprehension  of  it.  If  this  be  ad« 
mitted,  it  will  be  self-evident  how  a  development  proceeding  from  Peter's 
own  Christian  consciousness  might  gradually  prepare  him  for  such  an 
acknowledgment.  But  this  development  from  within  might  also  be  sup- 
ported by  outward  facts,  which  might  easily  be  forthcoming,  if,  before 
the  entrance  of  Paul  on  his  apostleship,  the  publication  of  the  Gospel  had 
anyhow  come  into  contact  with  the  Gentiles  ;  when  it  would  be  per- 
ceived that  among  them  also  the  hearts  of  men  invited  and  admitted  it. 

*  By  Gfrorer,  in  his  work,  "Die  heilige  Sage,"  1  Abth.  s.  444,  and  by  Baur,  in  hia 
often-quoted  work  on  Paul.  Gfrorer  proceeds  on  the  supposition  that  the  Acts  consist 
of  two  distinct  parts,  and  that  the  first  part  was  composed  by  a  follower  of  Peter ;  and 
Baur,  on  the  supposition  that  the  whole  was  pervaded  by  a  henotic  or  conciliatory  design- 
but  they  both  arrive  at  similar  results. 


THE    CHRISTIAN    CHURCH    IN   PALESTINE.  67 

But,  of-  ourse,  Christian  truth  cannot  gain  full  possession  of  the  inner  man 
withou*  a  struggle.  Everywhere  we  shall  have  been  prepared  to  expect 
in  the  development  of  Christianity  a  co-operation  of  the  supernatural  and 
the  natural.  And  now  when  we  find  an  account  handed  down  which  cor- 
responds to  all  these  points,  we  cannot  hesitate  to  acknowledge  the  im- 
press of  nature  and  of  truth.  Idea  and  history  are  brought  into  unison 
with  each  other.  Moreover,  Peter  evidently  occupies  a  middle  position 
between  James  and  Paul,  and  to  this  intermediate  position  must  there- 
fore correspond  also  his  own  course  of  development. 

If  we  examine  it  closely,  what  Paul  says  in  the  second  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Galations  respecting  his  relation  to  Peter,  and  that  apostle's 
relation  to  Judaism,  so  far  from  contradicting  the  view  we  are  advocat- 
ing, perfectly  agrees  with  it.  If  we  carefully  weigh  what  Paul  there 
says,  we  shall  naturally  be  led  to  assume  such  a  course  in  Peter's  devel- 
opment as  has  been  indicated. 

"When  Peter,  under  the  influence  of  the  Jewish  Christians  at  Antioch, 
was  led  to  abstain  from  free  intercourse  with  the  Gentile  Christians, 
Paul  did  not  consider  it  necessary  first  of  all  to  convince  him  of  the  truths 
that  were  opposed  to  his  line  of  conduct,  but  taking  for  granted  his 
theoretic  agreement  with  him,  only  accused  him  of  the  contradiction 
between  his  principles  and  his  conduct  at  that  time.  He  could  not  have 
expressed  more  strongly  the  freedom  with  which  Peter  had  hitherto 
acted  in  reference  to  the  Mosaic  Law;  Gal.  ii.  14,  "  If  thou,  being  a 
Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the  Gentiles  and  not  as  do  the  Jews,  why 
compellest  thou  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  the  Jews  ?"  It  is  evident  from 
these  very  words  of  Paul,  that  Peter  had  expressed  by  his  actions  the 
conviction  that  salvation  did  not  depend  on  the  observance  of  the  law  ; 
that  he  had  felt  no  scruple  to  live  with  the  Gentiles  as  a  Gentile,  as  Paul, 
in  v.  16,  avers,  speaking  from  his  own  stand-point  and  that  of  Peter  as 
identical ;  "  Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
but  by  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed  in  Jesus  Christ." 
In  v.  18,  he  charges  him  with  seeking  to  restore  what  he  had  already 
destroyed  ;  which  can  only  refer  to  that  renunciation  of  the  Mosaic  Law 
which  was  involved  in  Peter's  former  line  of  conduct.  Here,  therefore, 
such  a  revolution  is  presupposed  in  Peter's  views  as  cannot  be  sufficiently 
explained  by  the  influence  of  another  person  on  his  mind.  If  it  had  pro- 
ceeded from  the  influence  of  Paul  alone,  should  we  not  find  a  hint  refer- 
ring to  it  in  some  part  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  ?  Had  not  Paul,  when  he 
declared  that  he  needed  not  first  to  learn  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  from 
the  apostles  in  Palestine  — that  from  the  beginning  he  had  acted  inde- 
pendently in  the  publication  of  the  Gospel — the  most  natural  opportunity 
for  making  this  claim,  that  Peter  first  through  him  had  learnt  the  true 
nature  of  the  Gospel  in  relation  to  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  to  do  homage  to 
the  principles  first  of  all  laid  down  by  himself  as  the  only  correct  ones? 

The  narrative  in  the  Acts  furnishes  us  here  with  the  only  right  clue  to 
the  course  of  Peter's  religious  development,  the  clue  which  we  are  com- 


68  FIRST    SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

pelled  also  to  seek  by  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  narrative  is  in  fact 
drawn  from  life,  and  contains  in  it  all  the  elements  from  which  a  natural 
vivid  representation  can  be  formed,  although  the  author  himself  has  been 
at  no  pains  to  make  it  such.*  It  cannot  be  called  an  arbitrary  manufac- 
ture of  history,  if  we  employ  the  same  means  which  every  historian 
must  use  where  he  has  to  form  a  vivid  historical  representation  from  an 
account  wThich  does  not  develop  all  the  points  requisite  for  a  perfect  un- 
derstanding of  the  facts.  Necessarily  he  must  amplify  many  things 
"which  are  not  literally  contained  in  the  account  lying  before  him,  but  of 
which  the  outlines  are  given,  if  he  would  unite  everything  in  one  picture 
according  to  the  laws  of  analogy.  In  the  account  given  in  the  Acts,  the 
chief  concern  is  to  give  prominence  to  the  supernatural  and  the  divine; 
that  is  here  the  one  side  belonging  to  historical  truth ;  the  natural  cir- 
cumstances and  natural  connexion  of  causes  and  effects,  to  which  the 
narrator  did  not  direct  his  attention,  we  must  endeavor  to  fill  out 
according  to  the  indications  contained  in  the  account  itself. 

The  impulse  once  given  to  the  further  spread  of  the  Gospel  beyond  the 
bounds  of  Judea  could  not  stop.  Thus  we  find  churches  founded  in  the 
west  on  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  though  of  their  origin  we 
have  no  distinct  account.  Possibly  the  happy  effects  of  their  visit  to  the 
Samaritans  induced  both  the  apostles,  or  at  least  the  energetic  Peter,  to 
extend  their  missionary  labors.  Or  it  might  be,  that  the  scattering 
abroad  of  the  believers,  occasioned  by  the  persecution  against  Stephen, 
led  to  the  founding  of  these  churches.  At  all  events  it  was  natural — 
since  the  apostles  were  at  first  the  Patriarchs  (so  to  speak)  of  the  whole 
church,  and  in  the  original  community  of  believers  everything  was  under 
their  guidance — that  the  newly-founded  foreign  churches  should  also 
stand  under  their  superintendence.  And  in  virtue  of  the  gift  of  church- 
guidance  peculiar  to  Peter,  recognised  and  actually  claimed  for  him  by 
Christ  himself,  the  business  of  taking  the  oversight  of  the  younger 
churches   must  have  been  specially  committed  to   him.     A  visitation 


*  Even  Baur  has  acknowledged  that  the  notion  of  a  mythical  composition  is  not  ad- 
missible here.  He  thinks  that  he  has  detected  a  designed  fabrication  for  an  apologetic, 
conciliatory  object  that  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  'whole  book  of  the  Acts.  But  as  we  cannot 
in  general  find  in  the  simple  character  of  this  book  any  ground  or  point  of  connexion  to 
support  the  charge  of  such  &fraus  pia  pervading  the  whole  of  it,  so  we  think  that  as  to 
this  particular  part,  whoever  views  the  narrative  with  an  unprejudiced  eye,  must  decide 
against  Baur's  unnatural,  artificial  construction  of  it.  The  vision  that  happened  to  Peter 
which  related  to  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles  to  a  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah, was  copied  (according  to  Baur)  from  the  appearance  of  Christ  to  Paul,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  accrediting  his  call  as  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  (p.  78,)  and  contained  the  legiti- 
mation of  those  rights.  Such  things  may,  indeed,  be  imagined  if  persons  are  disposed  to 
fashion  the  materials  lying  before  them  according  to  their  arbitrary  preconceptions,  or  if 
they  look  at  everything  only  through  spectacles  of  their  own  making,  and  see  in  al] 
things  the  reflection  of  their  own  odd  fancies.  But  whoever  is  not  suffering  from  such 
optical  infirmity,  will  find  nothing  whatever  in  this  whole  narrative  which  can  justify  sucli 
a  comparison. 


PETER   AND   CORNELIUS.  #  69 

journey  of  this  kind  led  him  to  the  churches  founded  in  the  west  on  the 
coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea.*  He  was  still  accustomed  to  labor  only 
among  the  Jews ;  yet  he  had  already,  as  we  have  seen,  visited  a  people 
not  belonging  to  the  theocratic  nation,  the  Samaritans,  who  had  expe- 
rienced the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  faith  in  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth as  the  Messiah.  Already  he  would  have  heard  of  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  among  the  Gentiles  by  the  scattered  Hellenists,  and  of  the 
susceptibility  which  was  found  to  exist  in  the  hearts  of  the  Gentiles , 
perhaps,  also,  he  had  had  an  opportunity,  in  the  course  of  his  ministry 
among  the  Jews  who  lived  in  the  midst  of  the  heathen  world,  of  noticing 
traces  of  that  deep  concern  with  which  many  Gentiles  listened  to  his 
preaching.  And  what  he  actually  witnessed  might  bring  to  his  remem- 
brance many  things  which  Christ  intimated  in  his  discourses.  Thus  there 
might  be  a  preparation  for  the  entrance  of  new  light  into  his  soul,  though 
it  could  not  penetrate  all  at  once.  There  was  necessarily  a  conflict  in  his 
soul  between  the  rays  of  the  new  light,  and  the  darkness  arising  from 
his  earlier  habits  of  thinking.  But  now  a  divine  call  reached  him  from 
without,  and  co-operated  with  what  was  taking  place  within  his  "breast. 
As  among  the  Gentiles,  at  that  time,  there  were  many  noble-minded 
men,  dissatisfied  with  the  ancient  superstition,  who  longed  with  conscious 
or  unconscious  anxiety  after  a  divine  revelation  which  might  impart  the 
confidence  of  religious  convictionf  raised  above  the  strife  of  human 
opinions,  so  we  recognise  in  the  centurion  Cornelius  a  representative  of 
this  better  class  of  Gentiles,  an  historical  image  from  the  life,  and  no 
mythical  personage.  He  belonged  to  the  Roman  cohort  which  formed 
the  garrison  of  Caesarea  Stratonis,  a  town  on  the  sea-coast,  thirty-five 
miles  from  Joppa.  This  man  appears  first,  like  many  of  those  among 
the  Gentiles  who  were  filled  with  a  sense  of  their  religious  wants,  and 
were  seeking  after  the  truth,  to  have  turned  from  the  popular  polytheism 

*  Acts  ix.  31.  Baur's  assertion  (p.  40),  that  this  was  undertaken  in  order  to  counter- 
act the  more  liberal  principles  spread  abroad  by  the  Hellenists,  we  cannot  regard  as  pro- 
perly supported,  since  no  trace  of  it  can  be  found  in  the  narrative  itself.  Nor  does  it  by 
any  mearjs  follow,  because  there  is  nothing  said  here  of  laying  on  of  hands  and  the  com- 
munication of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  these  things,  therefore,  in  the  ministry  of  the  apostles 
among  the  Samaritans  are  unhistorical.  Although  both  journeys  come  under  the  com- 
mon category  of  visitations,  yet  the  difference — a  difference  of  object  and  in  the  mode  of 
operation  arising  from  the  different  class  of  persons,  in  one  case  the  Samaritans,  in  the 
other  the  dispersed  Jews,  among  whom  the  foundation  of  the  Church  had  been  already 
laid — is  not  on  that  account  destroyed. 

f  A  prophetic  longing,  such  as  is  contained  in  those  words  in  Plato's  Phsedon,  although 
it  might  not  be  so  strictly  intended  by  the  philosopher,  where  it  is  said,  that  "  taking  the 
best  and  hardest  to  be  refuted  of  human  opinions,  a  man  must  venture  on  the  voyage  of 
life,  carried  over  on  this,  as  on  a  raft,  unless  he  can  be  carried  over  more  securely  and 
with  less  danger  in  a  more  trustworthy  conveyance,  or  some  divine  word :"  rov  yovv 
iiehrioTov  tuv  dvdpvnivuv  Myuv  Aaftovra  koI  dvoetjeXeyKTOTarov,  lir\  tovtov  oxov/ievov, 
uanep  iirl  axe^aQ  Kivdvvevovra  Aian'kevaai.  rov  /3iov  el  firj  rtf  dvvairo  d(j<pa7Jarepov  ko.1 
u,KLv6vv6repov  km  (iefiaioTepov  oxrfftaTog  f{  Xoyov  8eiov  rivog  dianopevdrjvai  —Ed.  Bip.  vol. 

p.  194. 


70  FIRST   SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

to  the  worship  of  Jehovah  in  Judaism,  and  thus  to  have  reached  a 
theistic  standpoint  which  formed  a  bridge  for  him  to  Christianity. 

, Having  with  his  whole  family  professed  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  he 
manifested  by  his  benefactions  the  sympathy  he  felt  with  his  fellow- worship- 
pers of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  observed  the  hours  of  prayer  customary 
to  the  Jews ;  so  that  there  is  scarcely  any  room  to  doubt  that  he  be- 
longed to  the  class  of  Proselytes  of  the  Gate.  Nor  can  we  infer  the  con- 
trary from  the  circumstance  that  Peter  and  the  stricter  Jewish  Christians 
looked  on  Cornelius  as  an  unclean  person,  and  in  many  respects  the  same 
as  a  heathen.  The  Proselytes  of  the  Gate  were  certainly  permitted  tc 
attend  the  synagogue  worship,  which  was  a  means  of  gradually  bringing 
them  to  a  full  reception  of  Judaism.  Yet  the  Jews  who  adopted  the 
stricter  maxims  of  the  Pharisees,  placed  all  the  uncircumcised  in  the  class 
of  the  unclean,  and  avoided  living  and  eating  with  such  persons  as  de- 
filing. Unless  we  suppose  this  to  have  been  the  case,  what  afterwards 
occurred  in  reference  to  the  stricter  pharisaical-minded  Jewish  Christians, 
and  the  Gentile  Christians  who  had  been  partly  Proselytes  of  the  Gate, 
would  appear  altogether  enigmatical. 

The  Proselytes  of  the  Gate,  who  borrowed  from  Judaism  the  general 
principles  of  Theism,  but  separated  them  from  all  that  gave  it  vitality, 
found  in  it  consequently  not  enough  for  their  religious  necessities.  But 
they  were  roused  by  this  felt  deficiency  to  search  and  examine.  With 
this,  the  expectation  of  the  Messiah,  which  easily  passed  over  to  them 
from  the  Jews,  was  fitted  to  harmonize,  and  must  assume  a  form  cor- 
responding to  the  stand-point  and  spirit  of  their  seeking ;  it  was  not 
difficult  for  them  to  strip  off  the  sensuous  political  covering.  Now  a 
person  of  such  a  religious  tendency  of  mind  and  disposition  as  Cornelius, 
must  have  had  his  attention  roused  when  he  heard  that  the  Messiah,  from 
whom  he  expected  fresh  divine  light,  had  appeared,  and  when  he  heard 
of  the  spread  of  the  new  announcements,  and  of  Peter's  extraordinary 
works  ;  for  we  shall  be  quite  justified  in  assuming  that  such  a  report  had 
reached  him  of  what  had  taken  place  in  the  surrounding  country.  And 
here  we  must  apply  what  we  have  before  remarked  respecting  the  use 
of  the  accounts  in  the  Acts  as  historical  records ;  and  especially  a» 
respects  the  mode  in  which  Cornelius  was  induced  to  send  for  Peter, 
his  own  deposition  must  have  been  the  original  source  from  which 
alone  every  other  account  could  have  been  derived,  and  to  which 
every  other  must  be  traced  back.  But  we  are  not  justified  in  as- 
suming that  Cornelius,  who  certainly  could  best  testify  of  the  facts 
relating  to  his  own  state  of  mind,  of  what  he  had  himself  experienced, 
was  equally  capable  of  distinguishing  from  his  experience  the  objective, 
which  lay  at  the  ground  of  it.  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  state  of  his 
mind  and  the  direction  of  his  thoughts  were  such  as  to  enable  him  to 
distinguish  between  the  objective  and  subjective.  As  he  felt  himself 
pressed,  he  testified  of  the  divine  with  which  his  soul  was  filled,  without 
being  able  to  direct  his  attention  to  the  natural  circumstances  which  were 


PETER   AND   CORNELIUS.  71 

preparatory  to  the  divine  operation, — to  connect  the  natural  with  the 
Supernatural,  and  thus  to  unite  everything  that  occurred  into  one  com- 
plete representation.  The  deposition  of  Cornelius  as  to  what  happened 
to  himself,  must  be  regarded  from  this  point  of  view,  that  by  a  com- 
parison with  existing  historical  circumstances  and  conditions  we  may 
arrive  at  a  right  understanding  of  the  whole  proceeding.  We  are,  there- 
fore, justified  in  supplying  many  circumstances,  which,  though  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  are  yet  to  be  assumed  ;  no.t  in  order  to  obscure  what 
was  divine  in  the.  event,  but  to  glorify  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  as 
shown  in  the  way  men  are  led  to  a  participation  of  redemption,  in  the 
connexion  of  the  divine  and  the  natural,  and  in  the  harmony  that  sub- 
sists between  nature  and  grace;  Eph.  iii.  10.  In  the  picture  which  we 
are  enabled  to  form  by  this  combination  of  views,  all  the  particular  traits 
may  not  possess  equal  certainty.  But  we  may  be  assured  that  an  exhi- 
bition as  a  whole  will  remain,  of  which  no  sophistical,  destructive,  arbi- 
trary criticism  can  deprive  us. 

Cornelius  had  devoted  himself  for  some  days  to  fasting  and  prayer, 
which  were  frequently  used  conjointly  by  the  Jews  and  first  Christians — 
the  former  either  as  the  means  of  making  the  soul  more  capable  (by 
detaching  it  from  sense)  for  undisturbed  converse  with  divine  things,  or 
from  a  temporary  cessation  of  bodily  want,  the  natural  consequence  of 
deep  mental  abstraction.  This  they  were  wont  to  do  when,  in  an  emer- 
gency from  inward  or  outward  distress,  they  sought  relief  and  illumina- 
tion from  God.  We  may,  therefore,  presume  that  something  similar  was 
the  case  with  Cornelius,  and  naturally  ask,  what  it  was  that  so  troubled 
him  ?  From  the  whole  narrative  we  see  that  his  ardent  longing  was  for 
religious  truth  that  would  bring  peace  and  repose  to  his  heart.  Hence 
it  is  most  probable,  that  on  that  account  he  sought  illumination  from  God 
by  fervent  prayer.  And  what  occasioned  his  seeking  it  precisely  at  this 
time  ?  From  the  words  of  the  angel  to  Cornelius,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  the  apostle  Peter  was  wholly  unknown  to  him.  Peter  him- 
self, in  his  discourse  before  the  family  of  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  37,  appears 
to  have  presumed  that  they  had  already  heard  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 
We  may  suppose  from  earlier  indications  that  his  attention  had  been 
drawn  to  Christianity  and  also  to  Peter,  the  proclaimer  of  it.  He  had 
probably  heard  very  dissimilar  opinions  respecting  Christianity  ;  from 
many  zealous  Jews,  judgments  altogether  condemnatory;  from  others, 
opinions  which  led  him  to  expect  that  in  the  new  doctrine  he  would  at 
last  find  what  he  had  been  so  long  seeking :  thus  a  conflict  would  natu- 
rally arise  in  his  mind  which  would  impel  him  to  seek  illumination  from 
God  on  a  question  that  so  anxiously  occupied  his  thoughts. 

It  was  the  fourth  day*  since  Cornelius  had  been  in  this  state  of  mind, 

*  The  right  Interpretation  of  Acts  x.  30,  is  of  interest  here.  Many  have  interpreted 
the  words  as  equivalent  to — "  Four  days  ago  I  fasted  to  this  time,"  namely,  tho  ninth 
hour  when  he  was.  speaking;  and  thus  only  ono  fast  day  was  kept  by  Cornelius,  in  tlia 
ninth  hour  of  which  this  happened.     This  agrees  perfectly  with  the  reckouing  of  the  time 


12  FIRST   SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

when,  about  three  in  the  afternoon,  one  of  the  customary  Jewish  hours 
of  prayer,  while  he  was  caling  on  God  with  earnest  supplication,  he 
received  by  a  voice  from  heaven  an  answer  to  his  prayers.  The  appear- 
ance of  the  angel  may  be  considered  as  an  objective  event.  The  soul 
belongs  in  its  essence  to  a  higher  than-  the  sensible  and  temporal  order  of 
things,  and  none  but  a  contracted  and  arrogant  reason  can  deny  the 
possibility  of  a  communication  between  the  higher  world  and  the  soul 
which  is  allied  to  it  by  its  very  nature.  The  Holy  Scriptures  teach  us 
that  such  occasional  communications  from  a  higher  spiritual  world  to 
individuals  used  to  occur  in  the  history  of  mankind,  until  the  central 
point  of  all  communications  from  heaven  to  earth,  the  Divine  Fountain 
of  life  itself,  appeared  among  us,  and  thereby  established  forever  the 
communion  between  heaven  and  earth;  John  i.  52.  "We  need  not, 
however,  suppose  any  sensible  appearance,  for  we  do  not  know  but  that  a 
higher  spirit  may  communicate  itself  to  men  living  in  a  world  of  sense,  by 
an  operation  on  the  inward  sense,  so  that  this  communication  may  appear 
under  the  form  of  a  sensuous  perception.  Meanwhile,  Cornelius  himself 
is  the  only  witness  for  the  objective  reality  of  the  angelic  appearance, 
and  he  can  only  be  taken  as  a  credible  witness  of  what  he  believed  that  he 
had  perceived.  By  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  an  elevation  of  mind 
might  have  been  naturally  connected  with  his  devotion,  in  which  the  inter- 
nal communication  from  heaven  might  have  been  represented  to  the  higher 
self-consciousness  under  the  form  of  a  vision.*  Although,  in  the  words 
of  the  angel,  "  Thy  prayers  and  alms  are  come  up  for  a  memorial  in  the 
sight  of  God,"  the  expression  is  anthropopathic,  and  adapted  to  the  then 
Jewish  mode  of  speech  ;  yet  this  relates  only  to  the  form  of  the  expres- 
sion ;  it  is  the  divine  in  human  form.  There  is  designated  by  it  only 
the  divine  thought,  that  the  striving  of  the  devout  anxiety  of  Cornelius, 
which  was  shown  to  the  extent  of  his  ability  by  prayer  and  works  of 
love  towards  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah,  had  not  been  unheeded  by  the 
Fatherly  love  of  God  which  cherishes  every  germ  of  goodness;  that 
God  had  heard  the  prayer  of  his  longing  after  heavenly  truth,  and  had 
sent  him,  in  the  person  of  Peter,  a  teacher  of  this  truth.     From  the  whole 

But  the  meaning  of  dnb  favors  our  rendering  the  passage,  "  I  fasted  to  the  ninth  hour  of 
the  fourth  day,"  in  which  this  happened.  KuinoePs  objection  to  this  interpretation  is  not 
pertiuent;  for,  from  the  manner  in  which  Cornelius  expressed  himself,  it  must  be  evident 
that  the  vision  happened  on  the  ninth  hour  of  the  fourth  fast-day.  Now,  the  passage  can 
be  understood  to  mean,  either  that  Cornelius  was  wont  to  fast  four  days  in  the  week  to 
three  o'clock  of  each  day,  or  that  for  four  days  he  fasted  the  entire  time  up  to  the  ninth 
hour  of  the  fourth  day,  when  this  happened.  But  fasts,  according  to  the  Jewish  Christian 
mode  of  speaking,  did  not  imply  an  entire  abstinence  from  all  nourishment.  I  cannot 
agree  with  Meyer's  interpretation,  as  I  understand  it,  that  Peter  meant  that  he  had  fasted 
four  days,  and  on  the  fourth  day  reckoning  backwards,  that  is,  the  day  on  which  the  fast 
began,  about  three  o'clock,  this  event  happened.  Had  this  been  said,  then  elfil  must  have 
been  used  in  verse  30,  and  what  follows  also  must  have  been  different. 

*  The  word  bpafia,  vision,  (Acts  x.  3)  cannot  here  be  decisive,  since  it  may  be  used  in 
speaking  of  an  ecstatic  vision  or  of  a  real  appearance  as  an  objective  fact. 


PETER   AND   CORNELIUS.  V3 

form  of  this  narrative,  it  must  be  inferred  that  Cornelius  considered  the 
pointing  out  of  Peter's  place  of  residence,  not  as  something  that  came  to 
his  knowledge  in  a  natural  way,  but  by  a  supernatural  communication. 
It  is  indeed  possible  that  he  had  heard  it  mentioned  by  others  casually 
in  conversation  ;  but,  as  he  had  not  thought  further  about  it,  it  had  com- 
pletely escaped  his  recollection,  and  now  in  this  elevated  state  of  mind 
what  had  been  forgotten  was  brought  back  again  to  his  consciousness, 
without  his  remembering  the  natural  connection.  After  all,  this  is  only 
possible,  and  we  are  by  no  means  justified  in  considering  it  necessary. 
The  possibility  therefore  equally  remains,  that  this  information  was  com- 
municated in  a  supernatural  way. 

No  sooner  had  Cornelius  obtained  this  important  and  joyful  certainty, 
than  he  sent  two  of  his  slaves,  and  a  soldier  that  waited  on  him,  who 
also  was  a  Proselyte  of  the  Gate,  to  fetch  the  longed-for  teacher  of  divine 
truth.  But  this  divine  leading  would  not  have  attained  its  end,  Peter 
would  not  have  complied  with  the  request  of  Cornelius,  if  he  had  not 
been  prepared  exactly  at  the  same  time,  by  the  inward  enlightening  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  to  acknowledge  and  rightly  interpret  this  outward  call 
of  God.  In  the  conjunction  of  remarkable  circumstances  which  it  was 
necessary  should  meet  so  critically,  in  order  to  bring  about  this  important 
result  for  the  historical  development  of  Christianity,  the  guiding  wisdom 
of  eternal  love  undoubtedly  manifests  itself. 

It  was  about  noon,  on  the  next  day,  when  Peter  withdrew  to  the  roof 
of  the  house  (built  flat,  in  the  oriental  style)  where  he  lodged  at  Joppa, 
in  order  to  offer  up  his  mid-day  devotions.  We  can  easily  suppose  that 
the  prayer  of  the  man  who  had  been  so  zealously  occupied  in  publishing 
the  gospel  in  that  region,  would  especially  relate  to  this  great  object,  the 
extension  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  And  now  while  new  views  respect- 
ing the  spread  of  the  gospel  were  opening  to  his  mind,  there  might  have 
taken  place  in  his  soul  that  conflict  of  opposite  principles  to  which  we 
have  already  alluded.     A  divine  light  must  decide  the  point. 

While  thus  occupied  in  prayer,  the  demands  of  animal  nature  pressed 
upon  him.  He  arose  for  the  noon-tide  meal,  which  had  yet  to  be  pre- 
pared. In  the  meantime,  the  meditations  which  had  occupied  him  in 
prayer  again  abstracted  him  from  sensible  objects.  Two  tendencies  of 
his  nature  met  together.  The  higher,  the  power  of  the  divine,  had  the 
mastery  over  his  spirit,  and  the  power  of  sensuous  want  over  his  lower 
nature.  Thus,  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  divine  and  the  natural  were 
mingled   together,*  not   so   as   to  obscure  the   divine ;  but  the  divine 

*  What  Plutarch  says  of  such  an  appearance  of  the  higher  life  is  remarkable  :  uq  o'l 
6lvoi  t€)v  ufia  kvkTlcj  KaTa<pepofJ.evuv  ou/liutuv  ovk  enLKparovoL  j3ej3aio)g,  dXla  kvkXu  fih> 
vir  (IvuyKijc  (j>epu/iivuv,  kutu  <5£  Qvoet  fiexovrov,  yiverai  rcg  tf  d/jupolv  Tapaxudrjc  icdi 
napupopoc  iliynbg,  oi>TLig  6  Kalovfievos  fodovoiaafibg  eoixe  fii^LQ  elvai  nivrjoeuv  dvo'tv,  ttjv 
fitv  ug  ninovOe  rf/c  VWA'W  "/"a»  Tvv  $i  <Jf  nefvxe  Kivovftivyc  ;  (just  as  the  revolutions  of 
bodies  borne  downward,  are  not  fir.nly  controlled,  but  being  necessarily  carried  in  a  circle, 
while  naturally  carried  downward,  there  ensues  a  certain  ooufused  and  unsteady  motion 


74  FIRST   SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

availed  itself  of  the  reflection  of  the  natural  as  an  image,  a  symbolic 
vehicle  for  the  truth  about  to  be  revealed  to  Peter.  The  divine  light 
that  was  breaking  through  the  atmosphere  of  traditionary  representa- 
tions, and  making  its  way  to  his  spirit,  revealed  itself  in  the  mirror  of 
sensible  images  which  proceeded  from  the  existing  state  of  his  bodily 
frame.  Absorbed  in  divine  meditations,  and  forgetting  himself  in  the 
Divine,  Peter  saw  heaven  open,  and  from  thence  a  vessel,  as  it  had  been 
a  great  sheet  knit  at  four  corners,*  corresponding  to. the  four  quarters 
of  the  heavens,  was  let  down  to  the  earth.  In  this  vessel  he  saw  birds, 
four-footed  beasts,  and  edible  creeping  things  of  various  kinds,  and  a 
voice  from  heaven  called  upon  him  to  slay  one  or  other  of  these  creatures 
and  to  prepare  it  for  food.  But  against  this  .requirement  his  Jewish 
notions  revolted,  accustomed  as  he  was  to  distinguish  between  clean  and 
unclean  meats.  He  now  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  which  refuted  his 
scruples  with  these  very  significant  words,  "  What  God  hath  cleansed, 
that  call  not  thou  common."  It  is  clear  that  in  the  explanation  of  these 
pregnant  words  regard  must  be  had  to  their  several  references.  First, 
in  their  application  to  the  sensible  objects  here  represented.  "  Thou 
must  not  by  human  wilfulness  make  a  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean 
between  creatures,  all  of  which  God  has  declared  to  be  clean,  by  letting 
them  down  to  thee  from  heaven."  This  letting  down  from  heaven  wa3 
partly  a  symbol,  that  all  are  alike  clean  as  being  the  creatures  of  God, 
partly,  that  the  new  revelation,  the  new  creation  from  heaven,  presents 
all  as  pure.  Then  the  higher  application  of  the  words  intended  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  in  reference  to  the  relation  of  man  to  God  :  that  every  dis- 
tinction of  clean  and  unclean  would  be  taken  away  from  among  men  ; 
that  all  men  as  the  creatures  of  God  would  be  considered  as  alike  clean, 
and  would  again  become  pure  as  at  their  original  creation,  by  the  re- 
demption that  related  to  all. 

After  Peter  had  again  expressed  his  scruples,  this  voice  was  repeated 
a  third  time,  and  he  saw  the  vessel  taken  up  again  to  heaven.  He  now 
returned  from  the  state  of  ecstatic  vision,  to  that  of  ordinary  conscious- 
ness. While  he  was  endeavoring  to  trace  the  connection  between  the 
vision  and  the  subject  of  his  late  meditations,  the  event  that  now  occurred 
taught  him  what  the  Spirit  of  God  intended  by  the  vision.     Voices  of 

so  what  is  called  enthusiasm  seems  to  be  a  mixture  of  two  movements — one,  that  of 
the  soul  moving  as  it  is  acted  upon ;  the  other,  that  of  the  soul  moving  according  to  its 
natural  constitution.) — De  Pyth.  Orac.  c.  21. 

0  If  the  words  Aedefihov  nai  (Acts  x.  11)  are  genuine,  then  on  comparing  them  with 
xi.  5,  we  must,  with  Meyer,  interpret  them,  not,  "bound  together  at  the  four  corners," 
but,  "  bound  to  four  corners."  But  it  is  a  question,  whether  these  words,  which  are 
wanting  in  the  Cod.  Alex.  p.  e.  and  in  the  Vulgate,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  a  gloss, 
and  left  out,  as  in  Lachmann's  edition,  and  then  tho  clause  will  be  equivalent  to  "  letting 
itself  down  at  four  corners  from  Heaven,"  as  the  Vulgate  translates  it,  "quatuor  initiis 
submitti  de  coelo."  At  all  events,  these  four  corners  are  not  without  significance.  As 
they  corresponded  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens,  they  conveyed  an  intimation  that 
men  from  the  north  and  the  south,  the  east  and  the  west,  would  appear  as  clean  before 
God,  and  be  called  to  a  participation  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 


PETER    AND    CORNELIUS.  f5 

"Strangers  in  the  ourt  of  the  house,  by  whom  his  own  name  was  repeated, 
excited  his  attention.  They  were  the  three  messengers  of  Cornelius 
who  were  inquiring  for  him.  They  had  left  Csesarea  the  day  before  at 
three  o'clock,  and  arrived  at  Joppa  that  very  day  about  noon.  While 
Peter  was  observing  the  men,  who  by  their  appearance  were  evidently 
not  Jews,  the  Spirit  of  God  imparted  to  him  a  knowledge  of  the  connec- 
tion between  the  symbolic  vision  and  the  errand  of  these  persons.  A 
voice  within  said,  God  has  sent  these  men  to  seek  thee  out,  that  thou 
mayest  preach  the  gospel  to  the  heathen.  Go  confidently  with  them,  with- 
out dreading  intercourse  with  the  Gentiles  as  unclean,  for  thou  hast  been 
taught  by  a  voice  from  heaven  that  thou  must  not  dare  to  consider  those 
unclean  whom  God  himself  has  pronounced  clean,  and  whom  he  now  sends 
to  thee.  On  the  next  day  he  departed  with  the  messengers  from  Joppa, 
accompanied  by  six  other  Christians  of  Jewish  descent,  to  whom  he  had 
told  what  had  happened,  and  who  awaited  the  result  with  eager  expec- 
tation. As  the  distance  for  one  day's  journey  was  too  great,  they  made 
two  short  days'  journey  of  it.  On  the  day  after  their  departure,  (the 
fourth  after  the  messengers  had  been  despatched  by  Cornelius,)  about 
three  in  the  afternoon,  they  arrived  at  Caesarea.  They  found  Cornelius 
assembled  with  his  family  and  friends,  whom  he  had  informed  of  the  ex- 
pected arrival  of  the  teacher  sent  to  him  from  heaven ;  for  he  doubted 
not  that  he  whom  the  voice  of  the  angel  had  notified  as  the  appointed 
divine  teacher,  would  obey  the  divine  call.  After  what  had  passed,  Pe- 
ter appeared  to  Cornelius  as  a  superhuman  being.  He  fell  reverently 
before  him  as  he  entered  the  chamber ;  but  Peter  bade  him  stand  up,  say- 
ing, "  Stand  up,  I  myself  also  am  a  man."  He  narrated  to  the  persons 
assembled  by  what  means  he  had  been  induced  not  to  regard  the  com- 
mon scruples  of  the  Jews  respecting  intercourse  with  heathens,  and  ex- 
pressed his  desire  to  hear  from  Cornelius  what  had  determined  them  to 
call  him  thither.  Cornelius  explained  this,  and  ended  with  saying,  "  Now 
therefore  are  we  all  here  present  before  God,  to  hear  all  things  that  are 
commanded  thee  of  God."  Peter  was  astonished  at  the  pure  disposition 
so  susceptible  to  divine  truth,  which  appeared  in  the  words  of  Cornelius, 
and  formed  so  striking  a  contrast  to  the  obstinate  unsusceptibility  of 
many  Jews;  and  he  perceived  the  hand  of  God  in  the  way  Cornelius  had 
been  led,  since  he  had  sought  the  truths  of  salvation  with  upright  de- 
sire. Peter  therefore  said,  "  Now  I  perceive  of  a  truth  that  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons ;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  work- 
eth  righteousness  is  accepted  of 'him."  As  to  these  memorable 
words,  the  sense  cannot  be,  that  in  every  nation,  every  one  who  only 
rightly  employs  his  own  moral  power,  will  obtain  salvation  ;  for  had 
Peter  meant*this,  he  would,  in  what  he  added,  announcing  Jesus  as  him 
by  whom  alone  men  could  obtain  forgiveness  of  sin  and  salvation,  have 
contradicted  himself.  On  that  supposition,  he  ought  rather  to  have  told 
Cornelius,  that  he  had  only  to  remain  in  his  present  disposition,  this  was 
enough,  and  he  needed  no  new  doctrine  of  salvation.     But,  on  the  other 


76  FIRST   SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

hand,  it  is  impossible,  according  to  the  connection,  to  understand  by 
"  every  one  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness,"  those  who  had 
attained  true  piety  through  Christianity,  and  to  make  the  words  mean 
no  more  than  this — that  Christians  in  all  nations  are  acceptable  to  God ; 
for  the  words  plainly  import  that  Cornelius,  on  account  of  his  upright, 
pious  striving,  was  deemed  worthy  of  having  his  prayers  heard,  and 
being  led  to  faith  in  the  Redeemer.  Nor  can  these  words  relate  only  to 
such  as  already  believed  in  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  according  to  its  guidance  worshipped  God,  and  expected  the  Mes- 
siah. But  evidently  Peter  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  Jewish  national- 
ism.—God  judgeth  men  not  according  to  their  descent  or  non-descent 
from  the  theocratic  nation,  but  according  to  their  disposition.  All 
who,  like  Cornelius,  worship  God  uprightly  according  to  the  measure  of 
the  means  given  to  them,  are  acceptable  to  him,  aud  he  prepares  by  his 
grace  a  way  for  them,  by  which  they  are  led  to  faith  in  Him  who  alone 
can  bestow  salvation.  This  is  what  Peter  meant  to  announce  to  them.* 
As  all  the  conditions  under  which  a  living  faith  in  the  Redeemer  is 
formed,  existed  in  the  souls  of  these  men  who  were  seeking  after  salva- 
tion, so  by  the  powerful  testimony  of  Peter  such  a  faith  was  soon  awak- 
ened, and,  after  such  preparation,  followed  more  quickly  than  would 
otherwise  have  happened.  And  as  this  faith  in  the  process  of  its  forma- 
tion and  in  its  quality  differed  essentially  from  the  faith  of  the  Samari- 
tans, which  arose  more  from  outward  events,  and  adhered  to  what  was 
external,  so  also  the  effects  were  in  an  inverted  relation.  While  among 
the  Samaritans,  no  trace  was  to  be  seen  of  the  effects  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  even  after  they  had  received  water-baptism  ;  here,  on  the  contrary, 
in  these  men,  who  were  so  prepared,  the  usual  marks  of  the  outpouring 
of  the  Spirit  were  perceptible,  even  before  they  had  received  baptism. 
The  word,  which  found  a  receptive  soil  in  their  hearts,  effected  every- 
thing by  its  indwelling  power,  and  these  effects  of  the  word  testified 
their  well  founded  claim  to  baptism.  While  Peter  was  speaking  to  them, 
they  were  impelled  to  express  their  feelings  in  inspired  praises  of  that 
God  who,  in  so  wonderful  a  manner,  had  led  them  to  salvation.  One  inspi- 
ration seized  all,  and  with  amazement  the  Jewish  Christians  present  be- 

*  Cornelius  belonged  to  that  class  of  persons  who  are  pointed  out  in  John  iii.  21.  TVe 
are  by  no  means  authorized  to  maintain  tbat  Peter,  from  the  general  position  laid  down  by 
him,  intended  to  draw  the  inference  naturally  proceeding  from  it,  that  God  would  certainly 
lead  to  salvation  those  among  all  nations  who  possessed  the  traits  here  specified,  even 
if  they  did  not  during  their  earthly  life  obtain  a  participation  in  redemption.  He  expressed 
that  truth,  which  at  the  moment  manifested  itself  to  him  in  a  consciousness  enlightened 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  reflecting  on  all  the  consequences  deducible  from  it.  We  must 
ever  carefully  distinguish  between  what  enlightened  men,  speaking  under  certain  histori- 
cal conditions,  with  special  reference  to  present  circumstances,  and  according  to  interests 
immediately  affected,  consciously  intend  to  say,  and  the  contents,  with  all  their  deducible 
consequences,  of  that  Eternal  Truth,  which,  in  some  special  application  of  it  required  by 
circumstances,  they  make  use  of.  To  develop  the  first  is  the  province  of  exegesis  and  his- 
torical apprehension;  the  second,  that  of  Christian  doctrine  and  morals. 


PETER   AND    CORNELIUS.  77 

held  their  prejudices  against  the  Gentiles  controverted  by  the  transaction 
itself.  What  an  impression  must  it  have  made  upon  them,  when  they 
heard  the  Gentile,  who  had  been  considered  by  them  as  unclean,  testify 
wdth  such  inspiration  of  Jehovah  and  the  Messiah !  And  now  Peter 
could  appeal  to  this  transaction,  in  order  to  nullify  all  the  scruples  of  the 
Jews  respecting  the  baptism  of  such  uncircumcised  persons,  and  ask, 
"  Who  can  forbid  water  that  these  should  be  baptized,  who  have  already 
received  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  like  ourselves  ?"  And  when  he  re- 
turned to  Jerusalem,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  had  held  intercourse 
with  the  Gentiles  had  raised  a  stumbling-block  among  the  strict  Phari- 
saical believers,  he  was  able  to  silence  them  by  a  similar  appeal.  "  For- 
asmuch then,"  said  he,  "  as  God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us, 
who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I,  that  I  could,  with- 
stand God?"  Acts  xi.  17. 


BOOK   III. 


THE  SPREAD  OP  CHRISTIANITY  AND  FOUNDING:  OF  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN  CHURCH  AMONG-  THE  GENTILES  BY  THE  INSTRUMENTAL- 
ITY OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL, 


CHAPTER   I. 

Paul's  preparation  and  call  to  be  the  apostle  of  the  gentiles. 

When  anything  new  or  great  is  to  take  place  in  the  development  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  divine  wisdom  is  wont  so  to  order  events  that  an 
impulse  is  given  to  its  progress,  not  on  one  side  only,  but  in  several 
directions.  Without  being  aware  of  it,  the  men  whom  God  employs  as 
his  instruments  co-operate  from  various  stand-points,  to  prepare  the  way 
for  that  which,  in  the  issue,  is  destined  to  effect  a  great  revolution  ; 
threads  which  proceed,  in  the  course  of  the  world's  history,  from  various 
points  are  made  to  meet  at  last  in  one.  Beginnings  are  made  and  ap- 
parently fail ;  and  yet  what  seemed  to  rise  only  to  sink  forever,  finally 
becomes  the  victorious  creative  principle  of  a  new  illustrious  epoch.  So 
it  was  here. 

Stephen  appears  to  have  been  chosen  in  order  that  Christianity,  freeing 
itself  from  the  covering  underneath  which  it  had  hitherto  been  developed, 
and  bursting  the  forms  of  Judaism,  might  exhibit  itself  and  show  its 
power  through  him,  as  the  principle  of  a  new  creation  adapted  to  the 
whole  human  race ;  he  died  as  a  martyr  for  the  great  new  idea  first 
brought  by  him  to  light.  But  this  idea  did  not  die  with  him :  it  found 
other  organs  in  those  who  were  allied  to  him  by  descent  and  education, 
the  Hellenists,  who,  while  they  extended  their  agency  even  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, realized  in  various  small  circles  the  intentions  of  Stephen.  Then, 
from  the  midst  of  Palestinian  Judaism  itself,  came  forth  Peter,  who, 
from  quite  a  different  direction,  and  as  it  were  against  his  will,  was  led 
by  a  combination  of  influences  to  vindicate  the  independent  development 
of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles.  It  might  have  been  imagined  that 
the  more  liberal  Hellenistic  culture  would  produce  the  man  by  whom  the 
idea  put  forth  by  the  Hellenistic  Stephen  was  destined  to  be  carried  out 
in  all  its  extent.  But  God  likes  to  work  by  opposites,  and  very  differ- 
ently from  the  calculations  of  human  pragmatism.     There  is  a  divine 


THE    APOSTLE    PAUL.  79 

impress  stamped  on  the  paradoxes  which  meet  us  in  the  devekpment  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Thus,  not  from  the  Alexandrian  but  from  the 
Pharisaic  school,  that  great  man  was  to  come  forth,  who  was  destined  fto 
represent  Christianity  in  opposition  to  the  Pharisaic  conceptions  to  which 
it  hitherto  had  been  restricted.  This  new  development  was  to  emanate, 
not  from  what  was  kindred  to  it,  but  from  that  which  was  directly  op- 
posed to  it.  The  Pharisee  was  to  be  transformed  into  the  scribe  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  was  important  that  the.  new  spirit  should  take  to 
itself  a  form,  not  from  the  delicate  shell  of  Hellenic  culture,  but  from  the 
hard  kernel  of  Pharisaism.  The  solid  Christian  realism,  as  it  was  repre- 
sented in  Paul,  could  impress  itself  more  distinctly  on  the  hard  substance 
of  obstinate  Pharisaism,  than  on  the  tender,  yielding  material  of  Hellen- 
istic culture.  And  it  was  also  not  unimportant  that  in  Paul  the  Hellenist 
element  amalgamated  with  the  Palestinian  and  Pharisaic.  What  had 
been  effected  in  the  development  of  Christianity  by  Stephen,  by  the  Hel- 
lenists, and  finally  by  Peter,  was  concentrated  in  him.  If  in  the  manner 
by  which  Petei",  the  advocate  of  the  contracted  Palestinian  conception 
of  Christianity,  was  led  to  more  liberal  views,  there  is  found  something 
analogous  to  the  manuer  in  which  Paul  was  converted,  from  the  most 
violent  opposition  to  the  Gospel,  to  the  reception  of  it  in  its  most  compre- 
hensive form,  then  we  must  regard  it  as  an  objective  type  of  the  his- 
torical process  of  development,  proceeding  according  to  the  same  law 
and  with  the  same  great  outlines,  and  not  as  the  arbitrary  fiction  of  any 
human  mind. 

With  what  we  have  just  now  remarked  is  closely  connected  that 
which  in  the  history  of  the  development  of  Christianity  especially  dis- 
tinguishes the  Apostle  Paul.  It  wras  not  merely  that  churches  were 
founded  by  him  among  the  heathen,  and  that  the  sphere  of  his  labors  was 
so  extensive;  but  also  that  by  him  especially,  the  fundamental  truths  of 
the  Gospel  were  developed  in  their  living,  organic  connection,  and  foi'med 
into  a  compact  system;  that  the  essence  of  the  Gospel  in  relation  to  human 
nature,  ©n  one  side  especially,  namely,  its  need  of  redemption,  was  set  by 
him  in  the  clearest  light;  so  that  when  the  sense  of  that  need  has  been 
long  repressed  or  perverted,  and  a  revival  of  Christian  consciousness  hns 
followed  a  state  of  spiritual  death,  the  newly-awakened  Christian  life, 
whether  in  the  church  at  large,  or  in  individuals,  has  always  drawn  its 
principal  nourishment  from  his  writings.  He  has  presented  Christian- 
ity so  specially  under  this  aspect,  has  so  expressly  opposed  the  im. 
mediate  relation  of  the  religious  consciousness  to  Christ,  to  dependence  on 
all  human  mediation  whatever,  and  has  so  distinctly  separated  from  each 
other  the  Christian  and  Jewish  stand-points,  that  among  the  apostles  he 
must  ever  be  considered  as  the  representative  of  the  Protestant  principle. 
And  history,  though  it  furnishes  only  a  few  hints  respecting  the  early  life 
of  Paul  before  his  call  to  the  apostleship,  has  recorded  enough  to  make  it 
evident,  that  by  the  whole  course  of  his  previous  development  he  was 
fitted  for  what  he  was  to  become,  and  for  what  he  was  to  eftect. 


80  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

Saul,  or  Paul  (the  former  the  original  Hebrew,  the  latter  the  Hellen 
ized  form  of  his  name,)*  was  a  native  of  the  oity  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia. 
This  we  learn  from  his  own  expressions  in  Acts  xxi.  39 ;  xxii.  3 ;  and  the 
contradictory  tradition  reported  by  Jerome,  (de  V.  J.  c.  5,)  that  he  was 
born  in  the  small  town  of  Gischala,  in  Galilee,  does  not  appear  credible, 
though  it  is  not  improbable  that  his  parents  once  resided  there,f  which 

*  The  latter  was  his  usual  appellation  from  the  time  of  his  being  devoted  entirely  to  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen ;  Acts  xiii.  9.  Although  the  ancient  supposition,  that  he  changed 
his  own  name  for  that  of  his  convert  Sergius  Paulus,  has  been  recently  advocated  by  Meyer 
and  Olshausen,  I  cannot  approve  of  it.  I  cannot  imagine  that  the  conversion  of  a  proconsul 
would  be  thought  so  much  more  of  by  him  than  the  conversion  of  any  other  man  (and  he  was 
far  from  being  his  first  convert,)  as  to  induce  him  to  assume  his  name.  It  is  more  agreeable 
to  the  usage  of  ancient  times,  for  the  scholar  to  be  named  after  his  teacher,  (as  Cyprian  after 
Csecilius,  Eusebius  after  Pamphilus,)  than  for  the  teacher  to  be  named  after  the  scholar ;  for  no 
one  now  would  think  of  finding  a  parallel  in  the  instance  of  Scipio  Africanus.  And  had  this 
really  been  the  reason  why  Paul  assumed  the  name,  we  might  have  expected,  as  it  was 
closely  connected  with  the  whole  narrative,  that  Luke  would  have  expressly  assigned  it. 
The  more  there  may  have  been  of  design  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  the  Acts  in  changing 
at  this  time  the  apostle's  name  from  Saul  to  Paul — if,  as  Bauc  assumes,  (p.  93,)  it  was  an 
imitation  of  the  alteration  in  Peter's  name — the  less  likely  is  it  that  he  would  have  introduced 
the  new  name  at  once,  without  any  previous  notice.  And  Fritzsche  is  correct  in  saying 
(see  his  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  Proleg.  p.  11)  that  in  this  case,  not  Acts  xiii.  9,  but 
xiii.  13,  would  have  been  a  natural  place  for  mentioning  it.  Still,  I  cannot,  with  Fritzsche, 
think  it  probable  that  Luke  was  accidentally  led,  by  the  mention  of  Sergius  Paulus,  to 
remark  that  Paul  also  bore  the  same  name.  The  most  natural  way  of  viewing  the 
matter  seems  to  be  this:  Luke  had  hitherto  designated  him  by  the  name  which  he  found 
in  the  memoirs  lying  before  him  on  the  early  history  of  Christianity.  But  he  was  now 
induced  to  distinguish  him  by  the  name  which  he  found  in  the  memoirs  of  his  labors 
among  the  heathen,  and  by  which  he  had  personally  known  him  during  that  later  period ; 
and,  therefore,  took  the  opportunity  of  remarking,  that  this  Paul  was  no  other  than  the 
individual  whom  he  had  hitherto  called  Saul.  Here,  as  in  many  other  instances,  we  per- 
ceive the  absence  of  design  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Acts  is  made  up  from  various 
accounts. 

\  If  we  were  justified  in  understanding  with  Paulus  (in  his  worlc  on  the  Apostle  Paul's 
Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Romans,  p.  323)  the  word  kppalos,  Phil.  iii.  5,  2  Cor.  xi.  22, 
as  used  in  contradistinction  to  kWnviorris,  it  would  serve  to  confirm  this  tradition,  since  it 
would  imply  that  Paul  could  boast  of  a  descent  from  a  P&estinian  Jewish,  and  not  Hel- 
lenistic family.  But  since  Paul  calls  himself  e/3paiof,  though  he  was  certainly  by  birth  a 
Hellenist,  it  is  evident  that  the  word  cannot  be  used  in  so  restricted  a  sense ;  and  in  tho 
second  passage  quoted  above,  where  it  is  equivalent  to  an  Israelite,  a  descendant  of  Abra- 
ham, it  plainly  has  a  wider  meaning;  see  Bleek's  admirable  Introduction  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  p.  32.  This  tradition,  too,  reported  by  Jerome,  is,  as  Fritzsche  justly  re- 
marks, very  suspicious,  not  only  on  account  of  the  gross  anachronism  which  makes  the 
taking  of  Gischala  by  the  Romans  the  cause  of  Paul's  removal  thence  with  his  parents, — 
since  this  event  happened  much  later  in  the  Jewish  war, — but  also  because  Jerome,  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  (verse  23,)  makes  use  of  this  tradition  to  explain 
why  Paul,  though  a  citizen  of  Tarsus,  calls  himself,  2  Cor.  xi.  22,  Philip,  iii.  5,  "  Hebrceus 
ex  Hebr&is,  et  caetera  quae  ilium  Judaeum  magis  indicant  quam  Tarsensem,  "  (a  Hebrew 
of  the  Hebrews,  and  other  things,  which  indicate  that  he  was  a  native  of  Judea  rather 
than  of  Tarsus,)  which  yet,  as  we  have  remarked  above,  proceeds  only  from  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  epithet  which  Paul  applies  to  himself.  Jerome  must  have,  therefore,  taken 
up  this  false  account  ("talem  fabulam  accepimus,"— we  have  received  such  a  story — are 
his  own  woids)  without  proof,  in  a  very  thoughtless  manner. 


BY   THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  81 

may  have  given  rise  to  the  report.  As  we  do  not  know  how  long  he 
remained  under  the  paternal  roof,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  what 
influence  his  education  in  the  metropolis  of  Cilicia  (which,  as  a  seat  of 
literature,  vied  with  Athens  and  Alexandria,)*  had  on  his  mental  de« 
velopment.  Certainly,  his  early  acquaintance  with  the  language  and 
national  peculiarities  of  the  Greeks  was  not  without  influence  in  prepar- 
ing him  to  be  a  teacher  of  Christianity  among  nations  of  Grecian  origin. 
Yet  the  few  passages  from  the  Greek  poets  wJiich  we  meet  with  in  his 
disoourse  at  Athens,  and  in  his  Epistles,  do  not  prove  that  his  education 
had  made  him  familiar  with  Grecian  literature ;  nor  is  it  in  itself  probable 
that  such  would  be  the  case,  inasmuch  as  his  parents  designed  him  to  be 
a  teacher  of  the  law,  or  Jewish  theologian,  and  since  his  studies  must 
have  been  confined  in  his  early  years  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  at  about 
the  age  of  twelve  or  thirteen  he  must  have  entered  the  school  of  Gamaliel. f 
It  is  possible,  though  considering  Paul's  intense  Pharisaic  zeal  not  proba- 
ble, that  the  freer  mode  of  thinking,  and,  in  respect  to  Grecian  literature, 
the  liberal-mindedness  of  his  teacher  Gamaliel  might  have  induced  him 
even  at  Jerusalem,  to  turn  his  attention  to  Grecian  letters.  But  might 
he  not  at  a  later  period  have  been  led,  while  exercising  his  ministry 
among  people  of  Hellenic  culture,  to  make  himself  better  acquainted 
with  Hellenic  literature  ?  The  man  who  felt  himself  impelled  by  the 
glowing  zeal  of  love,  and  who  knew  how  to  become  as  to  the  Jews  a 
Jew,  so  to  the  Greeks  a  Greek,  in  order  to  win  them  over  to  the  Gospel, 
might,  for  promoting  that  object,  read  many  writings  of  the  Grecian 
philosophers  and  poets.  It  may  indeed  be  asked,  whether  he  would  have 
time,  amidst  his  prodigious  and  varied  labors,  for  such  a  purpose,  having 
in  addition  to  work  for  his  livelihood  ?  But  can  we  venture  to  measure 
Paul  by  the  common  standard  ?  It  would  not  be  easy  to  say  what  was 
not  possible  to  such  a  man.  Yet  we  must  not  draw  too  large  a  conclu- 
sion from  the  few  passages  of  ancient  authors  which  occur  in  his  writings. 
It  is  true,  we  shall  find  in  him  expressions  respecting  the  relation  of 
Christianity  to  the  culture  and  philosophy  of  the  ancient  world,  to  which 
the  history  of  Grecian  philosophy  gives  the  best  commentary,  and  which 
may  perhaps  give  evidence  of  a  deeper  acquaintance  with  it.  But  what 
in  others  would  be  the  result  of  study,  might  in  Paul's  case  be  sufficiently 
accounted  for  from  the  deep  insight  of  his  universal  Christian  philosophy. 
In  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 

~  Strabo,  wbo  wrote  in  the  time  of  Augustus,  places  Tarsus,  in  this  respect,  above 
those  two  cities:  roaavrrj  role  kvOdfle  dvdpcaKoic  onovdr)  npoQ  re  <ptXooo<piav  nal  ttjv 
aKkt)v  iyKviikiov  uwaaav  xaiAciav  yeyovtv,  uad'  vnep[iE01r}VTaL  nal  'Adr/vac  nal  'AAe£av- 
6ptlav  nal  el  rtva  ullov  ronov  dvvarbv  eItteIv,  iv  <L  axo?ial  nal  6iaTpi(3al  ruv  (piAooo<j>uv 
yeyovaai.  Geogr.  i.  14,  c.  5.  (The  men  from  that  city  had  so  great  zeal  for  philosophy  and 
the  whole  circle  of  arts  and  sciences,  that  they  surpassed  tlze  people  of  Athens  and  Alex- 
andria, and  of  any  place  that  can  be  named,  where  there  have  been  schools  and  discus- 
sions of  philosophers). 

f  See  Tholuck's  admirable  remarks  in  the  Studien  und  Kriliken,  1835,  2d  No.,  p.  366. 


82  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

he  had  several  opportunities  of  making  use  of  his  knowledge  of  Grecian 
literature,  if  he  had  been  familiar  with  it.  And  we  know  that  an  Apollos 
was  his  superior  in  Grecian  culture,  and  that  he  calls  himself  "  rude  in 
speech,"  (Idiurris  tw  Aoyw,)  2  Cor.  xi.  6,  as  compared  with  others. 

But  in  the  style  of  his  representations,  the  Jewish  element  evidently 
predominates.  His  peculiar  mode  of  argumentation  was  not  formed  in 
the  Grecian,  but  in  the  Jewish  school.  The  name  Saul,  Vk*,*  the  de- 
sired one,  the  one  prayed  for,  perhaps  indicates,  that  he  was  the  first- 
born of  his  parents,  granted  in  answer  to  their  earnest  prayers  :f  and 
hence  it  may  be  inferred,  that  he  was  devoted  by  his  father,  a  Pharisee, 
to  the  service  of  religion,  and  sent  in  early  youth  to  Jerusalem,  that  he 
might  be  trained  to  become  a  learned  expounder  of  the  law  and  of  tradi- 
tion ;  not  to  add,  that  it  was  usual  for  the  youth  of  TarsnsJ  to  complete 
their  education  at  some  foreign  school.  Most  advantageously  for  him, 
he  acquired  in  the  Pharisaic  schools  at  Jerusalem  that  systematic  mental 
discipline,  which  afterwards  rendered  him  such  good  service  in  develop- 
ing the  contents  of  the  Christian  doctrine ;  so  that,  like  Luther,  he  be- 
came thoroughly  conversant  with  the  theological  system,  which  after- 
wards, by  the  power  of  the  gospel,  he  uprooted  and  destroyed.  A 
youth  so  ardent  and  energetic  as  Paul,  would  throw  his  whole  soul  into 
whatever  he  undertook  ;  his  natural  temperament  would  dispose  him  to 
an  overflowing,  impetuous  zeal,  and  for  such  a  propensity  Pharisaism  sup- 
plied abundant  aliment. 

The  three  great  teachers  of  the  church  who  were  especially  called  to 
testify  (in  opposition  to  that  carnality  which  first  outwardly  opposed  Chris- 
tianity, and  afterward  renewed  the  strife  in  the  very  midst  of  its  develop- 
ment) to  the  antagonism  between  flesh  and  spirit,  nature  and  grace,  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural,  the  merely  natural  human  and  the  Chris- 
tian—these three  heroes  of  the  Gospel,  Paul,  Augustin,  and  Luther, 
had  in  common,  a  fervid,  powerful  nature  which  could  not  easily  be 
compelled,  but  would  contend  only  the  more  strongly  against  reins 
and  yoke,  or  any  violence  offered  to  it.  But  while  in  an  Augustin 
the  unbridled  rude  nature  manifested  itself  in  the  outbreak  of  lust 
and  passions  unchecked  by  any  higher  power,  and  thus,  in  himself 
even,  he  learned  to  know  the  power  of  sin,  it  was  otherwise  with  Paul  as 
well  as  with  Luther.  The  strict  discipline  of  the  law  to  which  he  had 
been  subjected  in  the  school  of  the  Pharisees  prevented  the  power  of  sin 
from  breaking  forth  outwardly  ;  it  was  driven  back  inwardly.  Certainly 
he  belonged  to  the  earnest  upright  Pharisees  who  strove  after  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  with  their  whole  souls.  In  the  sight  of  men  he 
appeared  as  righteous,  blameless.  As  he  himself  could  affirm  that, 
"  touching  the  righteousness  which  is  in  the  law,"  he  was  "  blameless," 

*  We  cannot  attach  much  importance  to  so  uncertain  an  inference. 

\  Like  the  names  Theodorus,  Theodoret,  common  among  Christians  in  the  first  century 

X  See  Strabo,  L  c. 


BY   THE    APOSTLE    PAUL.  83 

Phil.  iii.  6,  and  "profited  in  the  Jews'  religion  above  many  of  his  equals 
in  age,"  Gal.  i.  14.  But  the  more  earnestly  he  strove  after  holiness,  the 
more  he  combated  the  refractory  impulses  of  an  ardent  and  powerful 
nature,  which  refused  to  be  held  in  by  the  reins  of  the  law,  so  much  the 
more  ample  were  his  opportunities  for  understanding  from  his  own  ex- 
perience the  woful  discord  in  human  nature  which  arises  when  the  moral 
consciousness  asserts  its  claims  as  a  controlling  law,  while  the  man  feels 
himself  constantly  carried  away,  in  defiance* of  his  better  longing  and 
willing,  by  the  force  of  ungodly  inclination.  Paul  could  not  have  de- 
picted this  condition  so  strikingly  and  to  the  life,  in  the  seventh  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  if  he  had  not  gained  the  knowledge  of  it 
from  personal  experience.  It  was  advantageous  for  him  that  he  passed 
over  to  Christianity  from  a  position  where,  by  various  artificial  restraints 
and  prohibitions,  he  had  attempted  to  guard  against  the  incursions  of 
unlawful  desires  and  passions,  and  to  compel  himself  to  goodness;*  for 
thus  he  was  enabled  to  testify  from  his  own  experience,  (in  which  he  ap- 
pears as  the  representative  of  all  men  of  deep  moral  feeling,)  how  deeply 
the  sense  of  the  need  of  redemption  is  grounded  in  the  moral  constitu- 
tion of  man  ;  and  thus  likewise  from  personal  experience,  he  could  de- 
scribe the  relation  of  that  inward  freedom  which  results  from  faith  in  re- 
demption, to  the  servitude  of  the  legal  stand-point.  In  his  conflict  with 
himself  while  a  Pharisee,  Paul's  experiences  resemble  Luther's  in  the 
cloisters  of  Erfurt.  Although  in  the  Pharisaic  dialectics  and  exposition  of 
the  law  he  was  a  zealous  and  faithful  disciple  of  Gamaliel,  we  cannot 
from  this  conclude  that  he  imbibed  that  spirit  of  moderation  for  which 
his  master  was  so  distinguished,  and  which  he  showed  in  his  judgment 
of  the  new  sect  at  the  first,  before  it  came  into  direct  conflict  with  the 
theology  of  his  party.  For  the  scholar,  especially  a  scholar  of  so  power- 
ful and  peculiar  a  character,  would  imbibe  the  mental  influences  of  his 
teacher,  only  so  far  as  they  accorded  with  the  tendencies  of  his  own 
spirit.  His  unyielding  disposition,  the  fire  of  his  nature,  and  the  fire  of 
his  youth,  made  him  a  vehement  persecuting  zealot  against  all  who  op- 
posed the  system  that  was  sacred  in  his  eyes.  Accordingly,  no  sooner 
did  the  new  doctrine  in  the  hands  of  Stephen  assume  a  position  opposed 
to  the  Pharisaic  righteousnessf  of  the  law,  an  aspect  hostile  to  Judaism, 

*  As,  for  example,  from  the  stand-point  of  Pharisaism,  it  has  been  said,  "Instead  of 
leaving  every  thing  to  the  free  movements  of  the  disposition,  a  man  should  force  himself 
to  do  this  or  that  good  by  a  direct  vow.  Vows  are  the  enclosures  of  holiness." 
J^o  di"H3    n'ttJ^'-iSV.     See  Pirke  Avoth.  §13. 

f  The  question  has  been  raised,  whether  Paul  saw  and  heard  Jesus  during  his  earthly 
life  ?  "We  have  not  the  data  for  answering  the  question.  In  his  Epistles,  we  find  no- 
thing conclusive  either  one  way  or  the  other.  Olshausen  thinks  that  it  may  be  inferred 
from  2  Cor.  v.  16,  that  Paul  really  knew  Jesus  during  his  earthly  life  narti  odptca.  Paul, 
in  that  passage,  he  understands  as  saying,  "  But  if  I  knew  Christ,  as  indeed  I  did  know 
him,  according  to  the  flesh,  in  his  bodily  earthly  appearance,  yet  now  I  know  him  so  no 
more."  Against  this  interpretation  I  will  not  object  with  Baur,  in  his  Essay  "  On  the 
Party  of  Christ  in  the  Corinthian  Church,"  in  the  Tiibingon  Zeitschrift  fur  Theobgie,  1831, 


84  SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

than  he  became  its  most  vehement  persecutor.  After  the  martyrdom  of 
Stephen,  when,  many  adherents  of  the  gospel  sought  safety  by  flight, 
Paul'  felt  himself  called  to  counterwork  them  in  the  famed  city  of  Damas- 
cus, where  the  new  sect  was  gaining  ground.  And  he  hastened  thither, 
after  receiving  full  powers  for  committing  all  the  Christians  to  prison, 
from  the  Sanhedrim,  who,  recognized  by  the  Romans  as  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  authority  among  the  Jews,  were  allowed  to  inflict  all  dis- 
ciplinary punishment  against  the  violators  of  the  law.* 

No.  iv.  p.  95,  that  he  could  not  mean  this,  because  it  would  have  been  undervaluing 
Chris.t  in  his  state  of  humiliation,  which  would  be  in  contradiction  to  those  passages  in 
which  he  attributes  to  that  state  the  highest  abiding  importance,  and  says  he  is  deter- 
mined to  know  nothing  save  Christ  and  him  crucified.  For  though  the  remembrance  of 
Christ  in  the  form  of  a  servant  could  never  vanish  from  his  mind,  though  he  never  could 
forget  what  he  owed  to  Christ  the  Crucified,  yet  now  he  knew  him  no  longer  as  living  in 
human  weakness,  and  subject  to  death,  but  as  having  risen  victoriously  from  death,  the 
glorified  one,  now  living  in  divine  power  and  majesty ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  4.  The  relation  iu 
which  it  would  have  been  possible  to  stand  to  Christ  while  he  lived  in  the  form  of  a  serv- 
ant on  earth,  could  no  longer  exist.  No  one  could  now  stand  near  to  him,  simply  for 
being  a  Jew ;  no  one  could  hold  converse  with  him  in  an  outward  manner,  as  a  being 
present  to  the  senses;  henceforth  it  was  only  possible  to  enter  into  union  with  Christ  as 
the  glorified  one,  as  he  presented  himself  to  the  religious  consciousness  in  a  spiritual,  in- 
ternal manner,  by  believing  on  him  as  crucified  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  As  respects 
that,  therefore,  Paul  might  well  say  that  now  there  could  no  longer  be  for  him  such  "  a 
knowledge  of  Christ  after  the  flesh."  And  we  grant  that  he  might  have  said  hypo- 
thelically,  If  I  had  known  Christ  heretofore  after  the  flesh,  had  I  stood  in  any  such  out- 
ward communion  with  him  as  manifest  in  the  flesh,  yet  now  such  a  communion 
has  lost  all  its  importance  for  me  (such  a  value  as  those  Judaizers  attribute  to  it  who 
make  it  the  sign  of  genuine  apostleship) ;  but  now  I  know  Christ  after  the  spirit,  like  all 
those  who  enjoy  spiritual  communion  with  him.  But  Paul  could  only  say  this  in  a  purely 
hypothetical  way,  supposing  something  to  be  which  really  was  not;  for  allowing  that  he 
had  seen  and  heard  Jesus  with  his  bodily  senses,  his  opponents  would  have  been  far  from 
attaching  any  importance  to  such  seeing  and  hearing  as  could  have  been  affirmed  with 
equal  truth  of  many  Jews,  who  stood  in  an  indifferent  or  even  hostile  position  towards 
Christ.  The  reference  in  this  passage  can  be  only  to  such  a  "  knowing  of  Christ  after  the 
flesh,"  as  belonged  to  the  other  apostles,  since  only  to  this  from  any  religious  stand-point 
whatever  could  there  be  attached  a  value  against  which  Paul  might  have  felt  himself  called 
to  protest.  For  this  reason  I  must  agree  with  Baur,  who  understands  xPiaT°c  here,  not  °f 
the  person  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  Messiah,  a  Messiah  known  in  a  carnal  way,  as  from  the 
early  Jewish  stand-point.  I  also  believe  with  Baur,  that  if  Paul  had  intended  a  personal 
reference,  he  would  have  said  'Iqaovv  xp^tov,  and  I  cannot  admit  the  force  of  the  objec- 
tion which  Olshausen  makes  to  this  interpretation,  that  it  would  require  the  article  before 
Xpicrrbv,  for  in  designating  the  Messiah  absolutely,  the  article  might  be  omitted,  just  as 
Demosthenes  speaking  of  the  Persian  king,  to  designate  the  king  absolutely,  uses  the 
word  fiaoihevg  without  the  article. 

*  If  Damascus  at  that  time  still  belonged  to  a  Roman  province,  the  Sanhedrim  could 
exercise  its  authority  there,  in  virtue  of  the  right  secured  every  where  to  the  Jews  to 
practise  their  worship  in  their  own  manner.  If  the  city  was  brought  under  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Arabian  King  Aretas,  the  Sanhedrim  could  still  reckon  on  his  support,  in 
consequence  of  the  connexion  he  had  formed  with  the  Jews ;  perhaps  he  himself  had 
gone  over  to  Judaism.  The  Jews  in  Damascus  could  also  exercise  great  influence  by 
means  of  the  women,  who  were  almost  all  converts  to  Judaism.  Josephus,  De  Bell.  Jud, 
ii.  20,  2. 


BY   THE   a.   OSTLE   PAUL.  85 

As  respects  the  great  mental  change  which  Paul  experienced  in  the 
course  of  this  journey  undertaken  for  the  extinction  of  the  Christian  faith, 
what  has  been  said  concerning  the  history  of  the  conversion  of  Cornelius 
might  certainly  be  applied  here  also ;  and  so  the  supposition  is  possible  that 
the  event  strikes  us  as  sudden  and  marvellous,  only  because  the  history 
records  the  mere  fact,  without  the  various  preparatory  and  connecting 
circumstances  which  led  to  it ;  and  hence  by  making  use  of  the  hints 
which  the  narrative  furnishes  to  fill  up  the  outline,  we  may  gain  the 
explanation  of  the  whole  on  purely  natural  principles. 

Paul  (it  would  be  said  by  a  person  adopting  this  view  of  the  event) 
had  received  many  impressions  which  disturbed  the  repose  of  his  truth- 
loving  soul;  he  had  heard  the  temperate  counsels  of  his  revered  in- 
structor Gamaliel ;  he  had  listened  to  the  address  of  Stephen  to  whom 
he  was  allied  by  natural  temperament,  and  had  witnessed  his  martyrdom. 
But  he  was  still  too  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Pharisaism  to 
surrender  himself  to  these  impressions,  so  contrary  to  the  prevailing  bent 
of  his  mind.  He  forcibly  repressed  them  ;  he  rejected  the  thoughts  that 
involuntarily  rose  in  his  mind  in  favor  of  the  new  doctrine,  as  the  sug- 
gestions of  Satan,  whom  he  regarded  as  the  sole  contriver  of  this 
rebellion  against  the  authority  of  the  aucient  traditions,  and  he  accordingly 
set  himself  with  so  much  the  greater  ardor  against  the  new  sect.  Yet 
he  could  not  succeed  altogether  in  suppressing  these  rising  thoughts, 
and  in  silencing  the  voice  of  conscience,  which  rebuked  his  fanaticism.  A 
conflict  arose  in  his  soul.  While  in  this  state,  an  outward  impression 
was  added,  which  brought  the  internal  process  to  maturity.  Not  far 
from  Damascus  he  and  his  followers  were  overtaken  by  a  violent  storm ; 
the  lightning  struck  near  to  Paul,  and  he  fell  senseless  to  the  ground. 
He  attributed  this  catastrophe  to  the  avenging  power  of  the  Messiah, 
whom  in  the  person  of  his  disciples  he  was  persecuting,  and  confounding 
the  objective  and  subjective,  he  converted  this  internal  impression  into 
an  outward  appearance  of  Christ  to  him ;  blinded  by  the  lightning,  and 
stunned,  he  came  to  Damascus.  But  admitting  this  explanation  as 
correct,  how  is  the  meeting  of  Paul  with  Ananias  to  be  explained  by 
natural  causes  ?  Even  here  m^ny  particulars  which  are  not  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  narrative  might  be  supplied.  Since  Ananias  was  noted 
even  among  the  Jews  as  a  man  of  strict  legal  piety,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  he  and  Paul  were  previously  acquainted  with  one  another  at  Jeru- 
salem. At  all  events,  Paul  had  heard  of  the  extaordinary  spiritual  gifts 
said  to  be  possessed  by  Ananias,  and  the  thought  naturally  arose  in  his 
mind,  that  a  man  held  in  so  much  repute  among  the  Christians,  might  be 
able  to  heal  him,  and  restore  him  from  his  present  unfortunate  condition ; 
and  while  occupied  with  this  thought,  his  imagination  formed  it  into  a 
vision.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may  suppose,  that  Ananias  had  heard 
something  of  the  great  change  that  had  taken  place  in  Paul ;  and  yet 
did  not  give  full  credence  to  the  report,  till  a  vision,  explicable  on 
similar  psychological  principles,  had  overcome  his  mistrust. 


86  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

In  reference  to  this  explanation,  we  must  certainly  allow  that  what 
appears  in  the  Acts  as  immediately  miraculous,  might  have  been  prepared 
for  psychologically,  in  the  manner  we  have  unfolded,  but  nothing  in  the 
narrative  indicates  either  the  necessity  or  probability  of  such  a  prepara- 
tion. We  can  by  no  means  conclude  from  the  original,  fundamental 
features  of  the  Pauline  character,  from  its  general  susceptibility  to  the 
true  and  the  good,  that  the  sight  of  the  martyrdom  of  a  Stephen  would 
necessarily  deeply  impress,  and  at  last  master  the  soul  which  was  fortified 
against  it.  History  furnishes  us  with  numerous  examples  of  the  power 
of  religious  fanaticism  over  minds  that  in  other  respects  have  been  sus- 
ceptible of  the  true  and  the  good,  and  yet  while  under  its  influence,  have 
used  those  very  things  to  confirm  them  in  their  delusion,  which  might 
seem  fitted  to  rescue  them  from  it ;  as  many  pious  men  were  witnesses 
of  the  martyrdom  of  Huss,  who  died  in  a  manner  similar  to  Stephen,  and 
yet  only  saw  in  it  the  blindness  of  one  infatuated  by  his  self-conceit.  It 
is,  therefore,  quite  consistent  with  the  powerful  character  of  Paul  to 
believe  that,  in  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  he  saw  only  the  power  of  the 
evil  spirit  over  the  mind  of  one  who  had  been  seduced  from  the  pure 
faith  of  his  fathers  ;  and  that  hence  he  felt  a  stronger  impulse  to  counter- 
work the  propagation  of  a  doctrine  which  could  involve  in  such  ruin  men 
distinguished  by  their  character  and  their  talents.  Besides,  if  the  im- 
pression which  a  storm,  conjdined  with  these  preparatory  circumstances, 
made  upon  him,  alone  formed  the  groundwork  of  that  vision  of  Christ, 
it  is  unaccountable  that  Paul's  followers  also  believed  that  they  perceived 
something  similar  to  what  befel  him  ;  for  this  is  only  admissible,  if 
we  suppose  them  to  have  been  like-minded  with  Paul,  wrbich  could 
not  be  unless  they  were  already  Christians,  or  on  the  way  to  Christianity. 
But  such  persons  would  hardly  attach  themselves  to  a  persecutor  of 
Christians.* 

Such  attempts  at  explaining  the  narrative  are  suspicious,  because 
these  not  unusual  natural  appearances  are  made  use  of  to  bring  down 
what  is  extraordinary  into  the  circle  of  common  events.     Instead,  there- 

*  The  variations  in  the  narrative  of  these  events  contained  in  Acts  ix.,  xxii.  and  xxvi., 
prove  nothing  against  the  reality  of  the  fact.  Such  unimportant  differences  might  easily  arise 
in  the  repetition  of  the  narrative  of  an  event  so  far  removed  from  the  circle  of  ordinary  occur- 
rences ;  and  these  differences  need  not  bo  attributed  to  alteration  in  the  narrative  by  Paul 
himself,  but  may  be  supposed  to  have  originated  in  the  incorrectness  of  others  in  repeating 
it.  As  for  the  rest,  if  we  assume  that  his  attendants  received  only  a  general  impression 
of  the  phenomenon,  not  so  definite  as  Paul's,  for  whom  it  was  mainly  intended  ;  that  they 
saw  a  light,  but  no  precise  shape  or  figure ;  that  they  heard  a  voice,  without  distinguish- 
ing or  understanding  the  words ;  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that  various  representations  would 
naturally  be  given  of  the  event.  As  this  phenomenon,  from  its  very  nature,  cannot  be 
judged  of  according  to  the  laws  of  ordinary  earthly  communications  and  perceptions,  the 
difference  in  the  perceptions  of  Paul  and  his  attendants  argues  nothing  against  its  objective 
reality.  "We  are  too  ignorant  of  the  laws  which  regulate  the  communications  between  a 
higher  spiritual  world  and  men  living  in  a  world  of  the  senses,  to  determine  anything 
^ecisely  on  those  points. 


BY   THE    APOSTLE    PAUL.  8/ 

fore,  of  following  this  explanation  vvhich  is  attended  with  great  diffi- 
culties— we  might  rather  conceive  the  whole,  independently  of  all 
outward  phenomena,  as  an  inward  transaction  in  Paul's  mind,  a  spiritual 
revelation  of  Christ  to  his  higher  self-consciousness  ;  and,  in  this  light, 
we  might  view  the  experiences  which  he  had  in  his  conflicts  with  himself 
while  a  Pharisee,  and  the  impression  of  the  discourse  and  martyrdom 
of  Stephen,  as  forming  a  preparation  by  which  his  heart  was  rendered 
capable  of  receiving  these  internal  revelations  of  the  Redeemer.  But 
this  inward  transaction  may  be  conceived  of  in  two  ways,  the  difference 
of  which  is  determined  by  a  difference  in  the  conception  of  Christianity 
itself,  and  of  the  person  of  Christ  especially,  and  by  the  still  more  general 
difference  in  the  mode  of  contemplating  God  and  the  Universe.  It  may 
be  so  understood  as,  to  exclude  the  supernatural  altogether,  while  every- 
thing is  considered  only  as  the  result  of  natural,  psychological  develop- 
ment. For  the  living  Christ,  who  reveals  himself  to  the  spirit,  is  sub- 
stituted the  power  of  an  idea  which  through  him  is  excited  in  the  human 
spirit,  or  the  shining  forth  of  which  in  the  consciousness  of  the  spirit  the 
first  impulse  has  been  given  by  him.  What  represented  itself  as  Christ 
to  the  spirit  of  Paul,  is  only  the  symbolical  vision  of  this  idea  involun- 
tarily transferred  to  a  definite  person,  who  served  as  a  foil  for  it.  What 
appeared  to  the  spirit  as  something  external,  is  nothing  else  than  the 
reflection  of  what  proceeded  from  his  own  inward  being.  Such  a  con- 
ception as  this,  which  makes  Christianity  and  Christ  totally  different 
objects  from  what  they  were  to  Paul,  which  regards  as  self-deception 
what  inspired  him,  what  was  the  soul  of  his  life,  his  thinking  and  his 
acting,  and  gave  him  his  power  for  everything — such  a  conception  we 
must  most  emphatically  reject.  But  something  altogether  different  is  a 
spiritual  inward  revelation  of  Christ  as  a  real  fact,  in  the  same  sense  as 
Paul  would  regard  it,  and  as  Christ  promised  to  his  disciples ;  not 
the  coming  into  consciousness  of  an  idea,  but  a  revelation  of  the  same 
Christ  in  his  glorified  personality,  by  whom  in  his  earthly  manifestation 
the  salvation  of  mankind  had  been  effected,  and  with  whom  believers 
must  come  into  a  real  relation.  But  if  we  regard  this  only  as  a  spiritual, 
inward  transaction  proceeding  from  the  contact  of  the  higher  self-con- 
sciousness with  the  living  Christ,  and  that  which  represented  itself  to  the 
outward  senses  only  as  a  reflection  of  that  revelation  which  took  place 
in  the  inner  man — by  such  an  apprehension,  the  divine  and  the  truth 
of  the  event  would  lose  nothing.  At  all  events,  that  inward  reve- 
lation of  Christ  is  always  the  chief  thing,  and  however  we  may  conceive 
of  the  appearance  outwardly  recognisable  to  the  senses,  it  was  still  only 
the  means  of  leading  him  to  that  inward  revelation  of  Christ,  to  prepare 
him  for  that  real  spiritual  communion  with  the  living  Christ,  from  which 
his  whole  apostolic  efficiency  proceeded  ;  as  among  the  earlier  apostles 
the  reappearance  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection  was  only  the  prepara- 
tion for  the  ever-enduring  communion,  into  which  they  would  enter  with 
Christ.     The  perceptions  of  the  senses  cannot  have  greater  certainty  and 


88  SPREAD   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

reality  than  the  facts  of  a  higher  self-consciousness,  whereby  a  man 
receives  revelations  of  an  order  of  things  in  which  his  true  life  has 
its  'root,  far  above  the  sensible  world,  which  he  experiences  and 
apprehends  spiritually.  And  that  this  was  no  self-illusion,  capable  of 
being  psychologically  explained,  that  extraordinary  change  would 
testify  which  was  the  result  in  Paul  of  this  internal  transaction,  as 
would  also  the  whole  course  of  his  apostolic  ministy,  which  may  be 
traced  to  this  inward  experience,  as  the  effect  to  its  cause.  But  likewise 
the  manner  in  which  his  attendants  were  affected  by  what  happened  on 
this  occasion  contradicts  the  supposition  of  a  merely  internal  transaction, 
even  if  we  could  resolve  on  ascribing  the  state  in  which  Paul  came  to 
Damascus  to  the  power  of  an  internal  impression.* 

But  if  it  be  not  allowed  that  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  is  trustworthy, 
yet  the  testimony  of  Paul  himself  in  reference  to  this  event,  from  which 
he  always  dates  the  commencement  of  a  new  era  in  his  life,  must  be  met. 
As  he  often  in  his  Epistles  refers  to  it  in  opposition  to  his  Jewish  adver- 
saries, who  were  unwilling  to  acknowledge  him  as  an  apostle ;  so  he  had 
a  confident  persuasion  that  the  apostolic  commission  was  given  him  by 
Christ  in  the  same  manner  as  to  the  other  apostles ;  this  is  expressed 
most  fully  and  strongly  in  Gal.  i.  1.  Yet  here  we  need  not  suppose 
an  outward  event  to  be  meant,  but  may  understand  it  of  an  internal 
transaction  such  as  we  have  described.  In  the  sixteenth  verse,  Paul 
evidently  speaks  of  an  internal  communication  of  Christ,  of  an  inward 
revelation  of  him  to  his  self-consciousness,f  whereby,  independently  of 
all  human  instruction,  he  was  qualified  to  preach  Christ.  But  if  we 
allow  that  from  these  words  of  Paul  nothing  can  be  concluded  with 
certainty,  excepting  an  inward  revelation  of  Christ  which  he  was  con- 
scious of  having  received,  yet  we  can  by  no  means  grant  that  all  his 
other  expressions  respecting  this  transaction  are  to  be  explained  accord- 
ing to  this  passage,  and  consequently  that  there  is  only  that  pure  internal 
revelation  lying  at  the  basis  of  everything  else  that  he  reports.  By  men- 
tioning in  this  passage  only  the  one  particular  of  highest  interest,  he  by 

*  The  notion,  that  the  vision  which  immediately  preceded  Paul's  conversion  is  the  one 
described  by  himself  in  2  Cor.  xii.  2,  which  in  modern  times  has  been  revived  by  several 
distinguished  theologians,  has  everything  against  it :  in  the  latter,  Paul  describes  his 
elevation  in  spirit  to  a  higher  region  of  the  spiritual  world ;  in  the  vision  which  occasioned 
his  conversion,  there  was  a  revelation  of  Christ  coming  down  to  him  while  consciously 
living  on  the  earth.  The  immediate  impression  of  the  first  was  humiliating  ;  the  second 
was  connected  with  an  extraordinary  mental  elevation.  "With  the  first  his  Christian  con- 
sciousness began ;  the  second  marked  one  of  the  most  exalted  moments  of  his  inward 
life,  after  he  had  long  lived  in  communion  with  Christ;  and  by  such  a  foretaste  of  heavenly 
existence,  he  was  refreshed  under  his  manifold  conflicts,  and  animated  to  renew  his  earthly 
labors.  The  date  of  fourteen  years  mentioned  here,  is  of  no  chronological  use,  further  than 
to  satisfy  us,  that  the  date  of  Paul's  conversion,  fixed  at  exactly  fourteen  years  previous 
to  the  writing  of  this,  must  be  false. 

'  f  It  is  most  natural  to  understand  the  phrase  "in  me"  h  k,uoi,  as  denoting  something 
internal. 


BY  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  89 

no  means  excludes  all  others ;  but  it  suited  his  purpose  and  aim  to  make 
this  one  thing  prominent,  since  he  wished  simply  to  point  out  the  inde- 
pendent source  from  which  he  drew  his  knowledge  of  Christian  truth. 
And  in  this  connection,  the  way  in  which  Christ  appeared  outwardly  to 
him  was  a  matter  of  comparative  indifference.  It  is  evident,  that  what- 
ever that  way  might  have  been,  there  was  no  occasion  to  mention  it 
here.  But  it  is  another  particular  which  Paul  makes  prominent  in  1  Cor. 
ix.  1,  when  he  adduces  his  having  seen  Christ  as  a  pledge  of  his  genuine 
apostolic  dignity.?  It  could  be  only  such  a  seeing  of  Christ,  which  could 
have  this  importance  attached  to  it.  It  belonged  to  the  apostolic  calling 
to  testify  of  Christ  the  Risen  One  from  a  personal  sight  of  him.  Because 
Christ  had  been  seen  by  Paul,  he  stood  in  this  respect  on  an  equality 
with  the  other  apostles;  and  in  the  15th  chapter  of  1st  Corinthians  he 
evidently  places  the  appearance  of  the  risen  and  glorified  Saviour,  which 
was  vouchsafed  to  himself,  in  the  same  category  with  all  his  other  appear- 
ances after  his  resurrection.  Hence  we  see  how  important  it  was  for 
him,  as  well  as  for  the  other  apostles,  to  be  able  to  testify  from  personal 
experience  of  the  great  fact — the  basis  of  Christian  faith  and  hope — of  the 
real  resurrection  of  Christ  and  his  glorified  personal  existence.    Hence 

*  It  must  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  person,  that  this  cannot  refer  to  Paul's 
having  seen  Jesus  during  his  earthly  life,  (though  a  possible  occurrence,)  for  it  would  have 
added  nothing  to  his  apostolic  authority  ;  nor  yet  to  the  mere  knowledge  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ.  Ruckert,  in  his  Com.  on  this  passage,  maintains  that  it  refers  rather  to  one  of 
the  appearances  of  Christ,  which  were  granted  to  him  in  a  state  of  ecstatic  vision,  Acts 
xviii.  9.  xxii.  17,  than  to  that  which  occasioned  his  conversion,  especially  since  an  appearance 
of  Christ  on  that  occasion,  is  not  mentioned  either  in  Acts  ix.,  xxii.,  xxvi.,  nor  in  Gal.  i. 
12-16.  On  the'other  hand,  the  following  considerations  deserve  attention.  Since,  as  Ruckert 
himself  acknowledges,  the  reading  in  that  passage  is  to  be  preferred,  in  which  the  words, 
"  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?"  are  immediately  followed  by,  "  Have  I  not  seen  Christ  ?"  we  may 
infer  that  Paul  adduced  his  having  seen  Christ  as  a  confirmation  of  his  apostleship ;  as 
afterwards  for  the  same  purpose,  he  adduces  the  success  of  his  efforts  in  founding  the 
Corinthian  church.  Without  doubt,  he  urged  this  against  his  Judaizing  opponents,  who 
disputed  his  call  to  the  apostleship  on  the  ground,  that  he  had  not  been  appointed  by 
Christ  himself  like  the  other  apostles.  In  this  connection  it  is  most  natural  to  expect, 
that  Paul  would  speak  of  that  appearance  of  Christ  which  marked  the  commencement  of 
his  apostolic  career,  that  real  appearance  of  Christ  which  he  classes  with  the  other  appear- 
ances of  the  risen  Saviour,  1  Cor.  xv.  8,  and  not  a  mere  vision.  Ruckert  iadeed  maintains, 
that  Paul  made  no  distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of  appearances,  for  "  otherwise  he 
could  have  attributed  no  value  to  visions,  regarding  them  as  mere  figments  of  the  imagi- 
nation." But  this  conclusion  is  not  correct;  for  between  a  real  objective  appearance,  and  a 
natural  creation  of  the  imagination  formed  in  the  usual  psychological  manner,  we  can 
conceive  of  another  manner  of  appearance — one  produced  by  an  operation  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  on  the  higher  self-concsiousness,  in  virtue  of  which  what  is  inwardly  apprehended 
presents  itself  to  the  person  so  influenced  under  a  sensible  image ;  whereby  the  imagina- 
tion is  transformed  into  an  organ  for  what  s  apprehended  through  the  operation  of  the 
Divine  Spirit.  That  such  a  communication  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  distinguished  both  from 
a  real  appearance  to  the  senses,  and  from  a  mere  creatiou  of  the  imagination,  is  evident 
from  many  passages  of  Holy  Writ,  as  for  example,  Peter's  vision,  Acts  x.  12.  But  the 
word  "  no  one,"  firjSiva,  not  "  nothing,"  /j/jSev,  Acts  ix.  7,  certainly  implies,  that  Paul,  in 
distinction  from  his  attendants,  had  seen  a  person. 


90  SPKEAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

the  image  of  the  glorified  Christ  is  present  to  his  contemplation  when 
he  testifies  of  the  revelation  of  the  glory  of  God  in  Christ,  and  speaks  of 
that  perfect  conformity  to  his  image  to  which  believers  M'ill  hereafter 
attain.  But  may  not  what  Ave  have  before  said  in  the  case  of  Cornelius 
be  made  use  of  as  an  argument  against  the  objective  reality  of  this  ap- 
pearance of  Christ  ?  May  it  not  be  said — as  Cornelius  could  only  testify 
of  his  own  subjective  experience  of  what  he  believed  that  he  had  seen,  so 
it  might  have  been  with  Paul ;  he  believed  that  he  had  seen  the  risen 
and  glorified  Christ ;  as  far  as  he  tells  us  of  his  experience,  he  is  trust- 
worthy ;  but  it  does  not  therefore  appear  that  he  was  capable  of  distin- 
guishing between  the  objective  and  the  subjective;  hence  we  are  not 
at  all  justified  in  supposing  anything  else  than  the  inward  vision.  But 
the  comparison  is  not  altogether  correct.  In  reference  to  what  was  com- 
municated to  Cornelius,  it  is  not  a  point  of  importance  whether  it  was  a 
real  angelic  appearance,  or  a  vision.  The  importance  of  the  transaction, 
for  himself,  and  in  a  religious  view,  remains  just  the  same.  On  the 
contrary,  the  importance  of  what  was  seen  by*  Paul,  consists  in  this — ■ 
that  he  had  actually  seen  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ,  and  that  he  could 
testify  from  his  own  beholding  and  experience  of  that  resurrection  and 
glorification,  which  was  the  foundation  of  his  whole  religious  faith.  His 
believing  confidence  would  have  risen  from  self-deception,  if  we  admit 
that  he  had  here  confounded  the  objective  and  the  subjective.  We  can 
not  bring  ourselves  to  admit  this,  if  we  hold  in  due  esteem  this  belief  of 
Paul,  and  what  he  effected  by  means  of  it  for  the  salvation  of  men.  Be- 
sides, we  are  justified  in  placing  greater  confidence  in  a  Paul  than  in  a 
Cornelius,  for  forming  a  correct  judgment  respecting  himself.  Paul,  who 
knew  by  experience  the  state  of  ecstacy,  could  well  distinguish  it  from 
the  state  of  waking  and  thoughtful  religious  consciousness,  as  we  may 
learn  from  the  passage  above  quoted  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians. 

But  in  truth,  a  transaction  of  this  kind  can  never  be  proved  in  a 
manner  that  will  be  universally  satisfactory.  In  order  to  be  recognised  in 
its  reality,  it  must  be  regarded  from  a  peculiar  point  of  view  ;  and  who- 
ever is  a  stranger  to  this,  must  struggle  against  admitting  the  fact.  For 
history  in  general  there  is  no  such  thing  as  mathematical  demonstration. 
Faith  and  trust  are  always  required  for  the  recognition  of  historical 
truth.  The  only  question  is,  whether  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  it, 
or  more  which  prompts  to  doubt.  The  decision  depends  upon  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  facts,  and  of  the  whole  department  to  which  they 
belong.  The  occasion  for  doubt  is  stronger  in  proportion  as  the  nature 
of  the  transactions  in  question,  and  of  their  peculiar  realm,  is  something 
foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  inquirer,  and  as  these  facts,  outside  the  circle 
of  his  experience,  are  less  capable  of  being  decided  according  to  the 
standard  he  is  familiar  with.  This  remark  applies  particularly  to  trans- 
actions which  follow  other  laws  than  those  of  the  common  course  of 
nature,  and   in  which   something   supernatural  is   involved.     Whoever 


BY  THE    APOSTLE   PAUL.  91 

thinks  that  everything  must  be  explained  by  natural  laws,  and  is  neces- 
sitated to  acknowledge  nothing  supernatural  by  his  whole  philosoph 
ical  system,  will  feel  himself  compelled  to  refer  the  history  of  Paul's 
conversion  to  those  common  laws,  and  to  deny  everything  that  opposes 
them ;  it  would  be  in  vain  to  dispute  with  him  about  special  point*?, 
when  the  underlying  principle  of  his  whole  theory  has  predetermined 
the  course  of  his  inquiry  and  its  result.  Especially  in  the  explana- 
tion of  the  transaction  of  which  we  are  here  speaking,  it  is  of  con- 
sequence in  what  relation  the  inquirer  is  placed  to  that  on  which  the 
essence  of  the  Christian  faith  rests,  and  with  which  it  stands  or  falls — • 
the  fact  of  the  actual  resurrection  of  Christ.  Whoever  acknowl- 
edges this,  occupies  a  position  where  he  can  have  no  motive  to  deny 
the  supernatural  in  the  history  that  is  connected  with  that  fact. 
Such  a  person  can  have  no  ground  for  mistrusting  the  expressions  of 
Paul  respecting  this  appearance  to  him  of  the  risen  Saviour.  But 
whoever  from  his  own  point  of  view  cannot  acknowledge  the  actual  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  is  so  far  incapacitated  for  admitting  the  objective 
nature  of  this  appearance  to  Paul,  and  must  from  the  first  stand  in  a 
hostile  relation  to  it. 

But  yet,  it  is  always  important  that  we  do  not  separate  what 
God  has  joined  together;  that  we  do  not  tear  asunder  the  connection 
between  the  objective  and  the  subjective,  the  divine  and  human,  the 
supernatural  and  the  natural.  We  by  no  means  suppose  a  magical 
influence  on  Paul,  by  which  he  was  carried  away,  and  converted  against 
his  will.  According  to  the  view  we  have  taken  of  this  event,  we  suppose 
an  internal  point  of  connection,  without  which  no  outward  revelation 
or  appearance  could  have  become  an  inward  one ;  without  which  any 
outward  impression  that  could  have  been  made,  however  powerful, 
would  have  been  transient  in  its  results.  In  his  case,  the  love  for 
the  true  and  the  good  lying  underneath  his  errors,  and  repressed 
by  the  power  of  his  passions  and  prejudices,  was  to  be  set  free  from 
its  thraldom  only  by  a  mighty  influenoe.  No  miracle  whatever  could 
have  converted  a  Caiaphas  into  a  preacher  of  the  gospel. 

It  might  be  expected  that  Paul  could  not  at  once,  after  such  an  im- 
pression, enter  on  a  new  course  of  action.  Everything  which  hitherto 
had  been  the  motive  and  aim  of  his  conduct  must  for  a  time  have  seemed 
as  nothing.  Contrition  must  have  been  the  predominant  feeling  of  his 
crushed  spirit.  He  could  not  instantaneously  recover  from  so  overwhelm- 
ing an  impression,  which  gave  a  new  direction  to  his  whole  being.  He 
was  reduced  to  a  state  of  mental  and  bodily  weakness,  from  which  he 
could  not  restore  himself.  He  passed  three  days  without  food.  This 
was  for  him  the  point  of  transition  from  death  to  a  new  life ;  and  nothing 
can  so  vividly  express  his  feelings  at  this  awful  crisis,  as  the  exclamation 
which  he  himself,  reverting  to  his  earlier  state,  Rom.  vii.  24,  puts  in  the 
lips  of  the  man  who,  with  the  deepest  consciousness  of  inward  slavery 
under  the  law,  and  with  earnest  aspirations  after  freedom,  pours  forth 


92  SPREAD   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

his  whole  heart  in  the  words,  "  O,  wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall 
deliver  me?"  Nor  is  it  at  all  probable  that,  in  this  state,  he  would  seek 
for  social  intercourse.  Nothing  could  less  agree  with  his  feelings  than 
intercourse  with  the  Jews ;  nor  could  he  easily  prevail  on  himself  to  seek 
out  the  Christians,  whom  he  had  hitherto  persecuted.  To  a  man  in  this 
state  of  mind  nothing  could  be  so  welcome  as  solitude.  Hence  it  is  in 
itself  by  no  means  probable  that  information  of  the  great  change  that 
had  passed  upon  him  would  be  conveyed  by  other  persons  to  Ananias. 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that,  in  order  to  attain  to  a  full  consciousness  of 
his  new  life,  and  to  make  the  transition  from  this  intermediate  state  of 
contrition  to  a  new  life  of  active  exertion  in  communion  with  Christ,  he 
had  to  be  brought  into  connection  with  the  existing  Christian  church 
by  the  instrumentality  of  one  of  its  members.  In  communion  with  other 
believers,  he  first  obtained  what  he  could  not  find  in  his  solitude.  When 
he  prayed  to  Christ  who  had  appeared  to  him,  that  he  would  help  him  in 
his  distress,  that  he  would  enlighten  both  his  bodily  and  spiritual  eyes,  it 
was  jn'omised  to  him  in  a  vision  that  a  well-known  enlightened  man,  be- 
longing to  the  church  at  Damascus,  whom  he  probably  knew  by  name 
and  sight,  should  be  the  instrument  of  his  spiritual  and  bodily  restora- 
tion. When  Ananias,  in  obedience  to  a  divine  call,  visited  him,  Paul 
recognized  the  person  to  whom  the  vision  had  referred  him,  and  hence 
felt  immediate  confidence  in  him  ;  in  communion  with  him  he  was  now 
first  to  be  made  partaker  of  a  new  and  higher  principle  of  life.  Ananias 
introduced  Paul  to  the  other  Christians  in  the  city.  After  he  had  been 
strengthened  by  spending  several  days  in  their  society,  he  felt  himself 
impelled  to  enter  the  synagogues,  and  testify  in  behalf  of  that  cause 
which  heretofore  he  had  so  fiercely  persecuted.*  Whether  he  considered 
it  best,  after  bearing  this  first  testimony  among  the  Jews,  to  allow  its 
impression  to  work  silently  on  their  minds,  without  personally  attempt- 
ing to  enforce  it,  or  whether  the  plots  of  the  Jews  induced  him  to  emit 
the  place,  we  are  not  certain :  be  this  as  it  may,  he  visited  the  neighbor- 
ing parts  of  Arabia.  The  question  here  arises,  With  what  view,  and  for 
what  ohject,  did  Paul  visit  Arabia?  He  perhaps  found  an  opening 
for  preaching  the  Gospel  among  the  numerous  Jews  who  were  scattered 
over  Arabia,  and  devoted  his  activity  to  that  object.     He  would  here, 

*  It  is  difficult  to  consider  "certain  days,"  r//iepai  tlvIc,  in  Acts  ix.  19,  and  "  many 
days,"  nfiepaig  Uavalc,  in  the  23d  verse,  as  equivalent  terms.  Yet  it  cannot  be  proved 
from  these  words  that  Luke  by  the  latter  meant  to  show  a  break  in  Paul's  residence  at 
Damascus,  occasioned  by  a  journey  into  Arabia,  but  the  succession  of  events  as  narrated  in 
the  Acts,  is  most  naturally  understood  thus:  The  "certain  days"  merely  expresses  the 
few  days  which  Paul,  just  after  his  baptism,  spent  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Christians  at 
Damascus;  with  this  is  closely  connected  the  am  evdewc,  "and  straightway,"  after  he  had 
spent  some  days  with  the  disciples,  he  entered  into  the  synagogues ;  aud  the  "  many  days  " 
denote  the  whole  succeeding  period  of  Paul's  stay  at  Damascus.  Within  this  whole  period 
of  "  many  days,"  of  which  nothing  more  is  told  in  the  Acts,  we  must  place  Paul's  journey 
into  Arabia,  of  which  we  should  not  have  known  but  for  t'»e  mention  of  it  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  fialatians. 


BY   THE   AIOSTLE   PAUL.  93 

therefore,  first  of  all  have  appeared  as  an  apostle  to  the  Jews.  But  the 
reason  might  be  that  he  felt  impelled  to  prepare  himself  in  quiet  retire- 
ment for  the  great  office  entrusted  to  him  by  a  divine  call.  On  merely 
internal  grounds  the  question  cannot  be  decided.  It  is  quite  as  possible 
that  the  man  of  glowing  zeal  and  unwearied  activity  would  feel  himself  im- 
pelled to  testify  immediately  among  the  Jews  of  that  truth  to  whioh  he  had 
hitherto  been  an  enemy,  as  that  after  such  an  astonishing  convulsion  of 
his  inner  life  a  season  of  contemplative  repose  would  form  the  transition- 
point  and  preparation  for  his  great  activity.*  And  the  connection  in 
which  this  statement  occurs  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  not  decisive 
of  the  question ;  for  either  view  equally  suits  the  antithesis  in  that  pas- 
sage, that  Paul  did  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem  in  order  to  make  his  appear- 
ance under  the  sanction  of  those  who  were  npostles  before  him. 

From  Arabia  he  returned  again  to  Damascus.  Whether  the  Jews, 
whose  anger  he  had  already  excited  by  his  former  preaching,  as  soon  as 
they  heard  of  his  coming,  endeavored  to  lay  hold  of  a  person  who  was  so 
capable  of  injuring  Judaism  ;  or  whether  they  were  first  exasperated  by 
his  renewed  addresses  in  their  synagogues,  he  was  obliged  to  consult  his 
safety  by  flight,  as  his  life  was  threatened  by  their  machinations.  So 
far  was  this  man,  who  shunned  no  danger  in  his  subsequent  career 
though  now  in  the  first  glow  of  conversion,  a  season  when  the  mind  is 
generally  most  prone  to  extravagance — so  far  was  he  from  indulging  in 
that  enthusiastic  ardor  which  seeks  and  craves  martyrdom  !*  He  was 
let  down  by  his  friends  in  a  basket  through  the  window  of  a  house,  built 
against  the  wall  of  the  city,  that  he  might  escape  unnoticed  by  the  Jews, 
who  were  lying  in  wait  for  him  at  the  gates.  After  three  years  had  thus 
expired  from  the  time  of  his  conversion,!  he  resolved,  about  the  year  39, \ 

*  "  The  glorying  in  infirmities,"  (among  which  he  reckons  this  flight,)  rd,  t/jc  dadeveiac 
xavxiiodai,  is  one  feature  in  his  character  which  distinguished  him  from  enthusiasts :  2  Cor. 
xl  30. 

f  Three  years  after  his  conversion,  namely,  on  the  supposition  that  the  terminus  a  quo 
the  years  are  reckoned  in  the  passage  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  is  the  date  of  his 
conversion. 

%  This  circumstance  in  Paul's  life  furnishes  one  of  the  few  chronological  marks  for  its 
history.  When  Paul  fled  from  Damascus  three  years  after  his  conversion,  that  city  was 
under  the  government  of  King  Aretas  of  Arabia  Petraea,  2  Cor.  xi.  32.  But  since  Damas- 
cus belonged  to  a  Roman  province,  Aretas  must  have  been  in  possession  of  this  city  under 
very  peculiar  circumstances.  Susskind,  in  his  essay  in  Bengel's  Archiv,  1.  2.  p.  314; 
Wurm,  in  his  essay  on  the  chronology  of  Paul's  life,  in  the  Tubinger  Zeiischrift/iir  Tlitologie 
1833, 1st  No.  p.  27  ;  and  Anger,  de  temporum  in  Actis  ratione,  p.  181,  agree  in  thinking  that 
wo  are  not  quite  justified  in  admitting  that  Aretas  was  at  that  time  in  possession  of  Damas- 
cus, as  it  is  a  conclusion  no  wise  favored  by  other  historical  accounts ;  for  if  Damascus  was 
then  under  the  Roman  government,  the  Ethnarch  of  Aretas  might  have  ventured  to  place 
a  watch  before  the  gates  of  the  city,  or,  through  his  influence  with  the  Roman  authorities, 
nave  obtained  permission  for  the  Jews  to  do  this.  Yet  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that,  if  Damas- 
cus belonged  to  a  Roman  province,  the  Arabian  Ethnarch  would  have  ventured  to  surround 
the  oity  with  a  watch  in  order  to  get  a  Roman  citizen  into  his  power;,  or,  that  the  Roman 
authorities  would  have  allowed  of  his  doing  so,  or  at  his  request  have  exposed  a   Roman 


94  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

once  more  to  return  to  Jerusalem.*  As  to  the  object  of  this  jour- 
ney, it  follows  from  what  Paul  himself  states,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  (i.  18,)  that  the  main  object  at  least,  was  not  to  form  a 
connexion  with  the  Christian  church  in  Jerusalem,  but  to  become  per- 

citizen  to  the  wrath  of  the  Jews.  Although  the  history,  in  which  there  are,  besides,  so 
many  breaks,  does  not  inform  us  of  such  a  taking  of  Damascus,  yet  a  consideration  of  this 
passage  leads  to  that  supposition.  Now  the  circumstances  by  which  Aretas  may  have 
gained  possession  of  the  city  were  perhaps  these :  The  Emperor  Tiberias,  as  the  ally  of 
King  Herod  Agrippa,  whose  arm}7  had  been  defeated  by  Aretas,  commanded  Vitellius, 
the  governor  of  Syria,  to  get  possession  of  him  either  dead  or  alive.  But  while  Vitellius  was 
preparing  to  execute  these  orders,  and  various  circumstances  were  delaying  his  entering 
on'the  campaign,  news  arrived  of  the  emperor's  death,  which  took  place  in  March  of  the 
year  37,  and  Vitellius  was  thus  stopped  in  his  military  movements.  Aretas  might  have 
taken  advantage  of  this  interval  to  gain  possession  of  the  city.  But.  it  is  not  to  be  as- 
sumed that  the  city,  thus  snatched  from  the  Romans,  remained  long  in  his  hands,  and  it  i3 
probable  that,  as  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Caligula,  A.  D.  38-39,  the 
affairs  of  Arabia  were  settled,  Damascus  also  was  not  left  unnoticed.  If  we  place  the 
flight  of  Paul  from  Damascus  in  39,  then  his  conversion  must  have  been  in  A.  D.  36,  since 
it  must  have  occurred  three  years  before,  and  we  also  fix  the  same  date  for  Stephen's 
martyrdom.  From  the  absence  of  chronological  information  respecting  the  events  of  those 
times,  we  cannot  fix  with  certainty  the  date  of  Paul's  conversion:  yet  the  computation 
which  places  it  in  A.  D.  36  has  this  in  its  favor,  that  it  allows  neither  too  long  nor  too  short 
a  time  for  the  events  which  took  place  in  the  Christian  Church,  from  the  period  of  Christ's 
ascension  to  the  martydom  of  Stephen  and  the  conversion  of  Paul. 

*  The  accounts  scattered  through  the  Pauline  epistles,  and  the  narrative  in  the  Acts 
should  here  be  compared.  Baur,  in  his  often-mentioned  work  on  Paul,  thinks  he  has  dis- 
covered an  inexplicable  contradiction  between  them.  The  questio*  is,  whether  the  agree- 
ment or  the  discrepancy  between  these  two-sided  accounts  is  greater.  They  agree  in 
this,  that  Paul,  after  his  conversion,  did  not  at  first  return  to  Jerusalem,  (not  feeling 
himself  pressed,  as  might  be  supposed  he  would,  to  testify  for  Christianity,  where  he  had 
before  been  its  persecutor,)  but  remained  a  long  time  in  Damascus,  and  only  thence  be- 
took himself  to  Jerusalem.  They  also  agree,  except  in  trifling  particulars,  in  their  state- 
ments that  Paul  was  compelled  to  leave  Damascus.  Paul  himself  says,  2  Cor.  xi.  32,  that 
the  governor  under  King  Aretas  of  Arabia,  "  kept  the  city  with  a  garrison,  desirous  to 
apprehend"  him,  that  he  was  let  down  in  a  basket  through  an  opening  in  the  wall,  and 
so  escaped  the  hands  of  his  enemies.  In  Acts  ix.  24,  it  is  stated  that  the  Jews  lying  in 
wait  for  Paul  watched  the  gates,  in  order  to  slay  him  if  he  should  leave  the  city,  but  that 
the  Christians  let  him  down  at  night  in  a  basket  through  the  wall.  It  is  evident  that 
there  is  here  an  exact  agreement  between  the  two  accounts,  each  completing  and  ex- 
plaining the  other;  for  those  who  stirred  up  Aretas  or  the  governor  against  Paul  could 
have  been  no  other  than  the  Jews  embittered  by  his  apostasy.  And  now  the  discrepancies 
are,  first,  an  omission ;  the  failure  to  mention  the  residence  in  Arabia,  of  which  we  learn 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  It  may  be  that  the  author  of  the  account  in  the  Acts 
did  not  know  of  Paul's  residence  in  Arabia,  or  that  it  did  not  seem  to  him  of  sufficient 
importance  to  mention  it ;  either  of  which  might  the  more  easily  be  the  case  if  Paul  led 
there  a  quiet,  retired  life;  on  which  supposition  it  is  the  more  easily  understood  why  so 
little  was  known  at  Jerusalem  of  what  had  become  of  this  earlier  persecutor  of  the  Chris- 
tians. This  omission  can  the  less  be  regarded  as  a  mark  of  untrustworthiness,  as  the 
words  "many  days,"  (ix.  23,)  point  to  an  interval  in  which  something  like  this  residence 
in  Arabia  could  have  occurred.  It  is  evident,  that  he  who  wrote  it  knew  nothing 
definitely  about  the  beginning  of  the  interval  over  which  he  hastens ;  but  we  find  no  dis- 
agreement with  the  dates  mentioned  by  Paul  himself.  The  second  discrepancy  is  also  a 
partial  omission;  Paul  says,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  that   he  journeyed  to  Jeru- 


BY    THE    APOSTLE    PAUL.  95 

isonally  acquaint*  1  with  the  apostle  Peter.  This  does  not  exclude 
what  we  are  told  in  the  Acts,  of  his  intercourse  with  the  whole  church, 
and  his  disputations  with  the  Hellenists  ;  only  these  did  not  form  the 
object  for  undertaking  the  journey,  but  only  something  additional  while 
carrying  out  his  original  design.  But  it  may  be  asked,  Why  was 
Paul  so  anxious  to  become  personally  acquainted  with  Peter  ?  If  Pe- 
ter was  allied  to  Paul  by  the  fire  of  an  outwardly  directed  activity, 
yet,  on  the  other  hand,  John,  by  the  deep  inward  element,  the  con- 
templative tendency  of  his  spirit  seems  yet'more  closely  allied  to  him. 
Paul  might,  therefore,  from  various  considerations  and  motives  desire  to 
be  personally  acquainted  both  with  Peter  and  John.  But  the  character- 
istic qualities  of  John's  mind  appear  not  to  have  been  prominently 
brought  into  action  till  a  later  period.  Peter,  in  virtue  of  his  peculiar  "  gift 
of  government,"  ^dpio/ia  Kvi3epvrj(7eoyg,  and  the  position  in  which  he  had 
been  placed  by  the  Lord  himself,  had  from  the  first  taken  the  lead  in  all 
that  related  to  the  government  of  the  church.  He  especially  was  active 
in  promoting  the  spread  of  Christianity — a  sufficient  reason  why  Paul, 
before  entering  on  his  public  ministry,  should  wish  to  confer  with  him  in 
particular.  If  Paul  had  already  attained  a  clear  insight  into  the  princi- 
ples according  to  which  he  founded  the  Christian  church  among  the 
Gentiles,  a  subject  closely  connected  with  these,  namely,  the  relation  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  Law,  might  have  formed  the  topic  of  discussion 
between  them.  Among  the  reasons  which  led  him  to  wish  for  a  per- 
sonal acquaintance  with  Peter,  might  have  been  the  desire  to  know  more 
exactly  what  he  thought  upon  this  subject.  Although  it  was  not  till 
Paul  had  already  gained  an  independent  sphere  of  action,  that  a  full  con- 
ference took  place  between  them  on  the  relation  of  the  different  spheres 
of  apostolic  service  and  mode  of  operation,  yet  this  does  not  render  it 
impossible  that  at  this  first  interview  between  Peter  and  Paul,  they  con- 
versed on  what  was  essential  for  the  founding  of  a  Christian  church. 
Now  if,  as  is  very  likely,  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  had  already  taken 
place,  we  may  also  presume  that  Peter  by  what  had  then  occurred  was 
prepared  to  acknowledge  the  principles  laid  down  by  Paul.  But  if  the 
contrary  was  the  fact,  the  conference  with  Paul  might  have  been  one  of 
those  influential  circumstances  by  which  the  conflict  in  Peter's  mind  that 
terminated  at  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  was  brought  to  its  final  result. 
In  the  first  case,  Peter  might  have  acted  as  a  mediator  between  Paul  and 
James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who  in  this  respect  stood  furthest  from 
Paul.  It  is  remarkable,  that  these  were  the  only  leaders  (Coryphaei)  of 
the  church  with  whom  he  at  first  came  in  contact. 

But  here  another  question  arises.     Was  it  purely  accidental,  that  Paul 

salem  the  first  time,  not  to  learn  from  the  apostles  there  the  true  Christian  doctrine,  but 
only  to  make  the  personal  acquaintance  of  Peter,  and  that,  therefore,  he  remained  only 
fourteen  days,  and  saw  none  of  the  apostles  except  James,  the  brothe-  of  the  Lord.  In  the 
Acts  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  is  mentioned,  but  not  tie  object  of  it,  which  perhap  waa 
not  known  to  the  author. 


96  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

met  with  but  one  apostle  and  one  apostolic  man  ?  Did  he  avoid  an  in. 
terview  with  the  collective  church  and  with  the  rest  of  the  apostles  ? 
On  this  supposition  we  must  regard  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  on  this 
point  as  erroneous.  But  what  design  could  Paul  have  had  in  so  acting  ? 
Shall  we  seek  for  the  reason  in  what  he  says  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  that  he  wished  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  not  having  from  the  first 
entered  independently  on  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  having 
been  instructed  and  furnished  with  full  powers  for  it  by  the  apostles  ? 
But  this  appearance  would  be  produced  as  much,  if  not  more,  by  seek- 
ing a  conference  with  the  two  pillars  of  the  church.  If  Paul  had  wished 
sedulously  to  avoid  everything  which  might  occasion  such  an  appearance, 
he 'would  not  have  gone  at  all  to  Jerusalem.  Only  one  supposition  re- 
mains, that  Paul  did  not  show  himself  openly,  but  merely  conferred  in 
secret  with  Peter,  on  account  of  his  personal  safety,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  plots  of  his  embittered  enemies  among  the  Jews  ;  and  that  through 
Peter  he  met  with  James  in  the  same  private  manner.  This  supposition 
might  be  confirmed  by  Paul's  representation  in  the  above  mentioned 
passage  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  that,  for  fourteen  years  (or  eleven 
years  after  this  journey)  he  had  been  quite  unknown  by  sight  to  the 
churches  in  Judea,  and  that  they  had  only  heard  of  him  by  report.  But 
this  would  lead  us  to  declare  several  things  in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts 
respecting  this  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  untrue  ;*  at  al*  events  we 
could  not  regard  the  account  that  Barnabasf  introduced  Paul  to  the 
apostles  in  general  as  perfectly  accurate,  since  Paul,  according  to  his 
own  statement,  met  only  with  Peter  .J  If  Paul  at  that  time,  in  order  to 
evade  the  plots  of  the  Jews  embittered  against  him  for  his  apostasy,  had 
been  induced  to  remain  in  secret  with  Peter  without  showing  himself 
openly,  it  follows  that  the  report  of  the  change  that  had  taken  place  in 
his  character  must  have  already  been  widely  spread  in  Jerusalem.  But 
this  being  presupposed,  it  cannot  be  admitted  that  the  Christians  in 
Jerusalem  were  filled  with  mistrust  against  him,  nor  could  he  have  needed 
the  friendly  offices  of  Barnabas  to  gain  admission  to  the  church.  It  is 
also,  in  itself,  highly  improbable,  that  the  conversion  of  such  an  adver- 
sary, which  was  accomplished  too  in  so  remarkable  a  manner,  should 
not  have  become  known  after  so  long  an  interval  among  the  Christians 

*  Here  we  must,  therefore,  in  truth  acknowledge  that  Baur's  doubts  are  not  altogether 
unfounded,  although  we  canuot  acknowledge  the  decisive  tone  of  his  assertions  to  be 
equally  well-founded,  and  at  all  events  we  can  only  admit  an  accidental  error  of  tradition, 
which  nowise  affects  the  general  truth  of  the  narration,  and  implies  no  designed  fabrica- 
tion for  a  special  purpose. 

f  According  to  an  account  not  sufficiently  authenticated,  in  the  Hypotyposes  of  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria  in  Eusebius,  {Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  1,)  Barnabas  had  been  one  of  the  seventy 
disciples. 

\  But  this  erroneous  statement  involves  only  an  ignorance  of  particular  circumstances  ; 
for  as  soon  as  it  was  known  that  Paul  had  made  his  first  visit  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
without  an  acquaintance  with  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  it  took  place,  the 
assumption  might  be  easily  made,  that  he  was  then  introduced  to  the  apostles  in  general, 


BY  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  97 

in  Jerusalem.*  And  if  only  such  a  concealed  visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem 
be  admitted,  the  disputations  between  him  and  the  Hellenists  could  not 
have  taken  place.  Certainly  this  supposition  has  several  things  in  its 
favor,  but  even  admitting  it,  the  credibility  of  the  Acts  in  all  essential 
points  would  still  remain  unshaken.  From  this  one  mistake,  that  the 
visit  of  Paul  to  Jerusalem  instead  of  a  private,  was  represented  as  a 
public  one,  other  mistakes  would  follow  without  occasioning  what  might 
justly  be  called  an  essential  deviation  from  historical  truth.  Meanwhile, 
we  do  not  yet  venture  to  maintain  this,  since  many  adjustments  can  be 
conceived  between  the  two  accounts,  by  which  they  supply  each  other's 
deficiencies. 

We  cannot  certainly  contradict  the  assertion,  that  Paul's  conversion 
must  have  been  already  generally  known  in  Jerusalem.  It  might  lessen 
the  difficulty  if  we  consider  that  the  young  man  Saul  could  not  at  that 
time  have  attained  to  such  great  eminence,  that  the  greater  part  of  those 
three  years  after  his  conversion  had  been  spent  in  retirement  in  Arabia, 
and  that  his  return  was  rendered  difficult  by  political  occurrences — the 
war  with  King  Aretas.  But  it  might  be  also,  that  Barnabas  aided  him 
by  his  good  offices,  though  not  for  the  precise  object  of  removing  the 
mistrust  of  the  believers.  He  might  have  applied  to  him  as  to  a  Hellenist, 
one  of  his  old  acquaintances,  and  through  him  have  been  introduced  to 
Peter.  In  itself  it  is  perfectly  natural  that  he  should  have  first  resorted  to 
those  Christians  who  stood  nearest  to  him  by  descent,  and  perhaps  by 
early  acquaintance.  Thus  it  might  easily  happen  that,  although  he  had 
not  yet  come  in  contact  with  the  whole  Church,  he  had  had  intercourse 
with  many  Hellenists,  and  through  them  was  involved  in  those  dispu- 
tations which  led  to  the  persecutions  afterwards  raised  against  him. 

But  in  reference  to  these  disputations  of  Paul  with  the  Hellenists,  ques- 
tions suggest  themselves  which  we  must  examine  before  we  proceed  any 
further  with  the  consideration  of  his  life  and  labors : — the  question,  whe- 
ther Paul  from  the  beginning  occupied  that  peculiar  point  of  view  which 
he  held  afterwards  on  the  opposition  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel, 
and  in  accordance  with  this  had  resolved  to  present  Christianity  to  the 
Gentiles  in  its  independent  development,  separate  from  Judaism,  or  whe- 
ther such  a  tendency  was  formed  in  his  mind  by  the  opposition  his  preach- 
ing met  with  from  a  hostile  Judaism — the  question,  from  what  influences 
the  development  of  this  peculiarly  Pauline  element  is  to  be  deduced  ;  and 
this  question,  again,  is  connected  with-  the  more  general  one,  respecting 
the  sources  to  which  Paul  was  indebted  for  his  knowledge  of  Christian 
truth. 

In  passing  over  from  Pharisaism  to  Christianity,  it  would  very  com- 
monly happen  that  dependence  on  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic  Law 
as  a  matter  of  perpetual  obligation  would  be  retained.  This  would 
be  the  case  in  conversions  effected  by  ordinary  instrumentality.     But 

*  As  Baur  especially  notices. 
7 


98  SPBEAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

it  was  altogether  different  with  the  conversion  of  Paul,  which  was 
not  brought  about  by  any  such  instrumentality,  but  in  an  immediate 
and  'sudden  manner  by  a  violent  crisis.  Here  could  be  no  connexion 
with  the  spirit  of  Pharisaism,  but  only  an  utter  opposition  to  it.  We 
may  suppose  that  the  powerful  spirit  of  Paul,  disposed  to  exercise  it- 
self in  eager  controversy  when  left  to  the  natural  course  of  development, 
would  be  impelled,  like  the  later  ultra-Paulinians,  to  a  direction  altogether 
hostile  to  Judaism. 

"VVe  have  already  remarked,  that  the  influence  of  Hellenism  on  a  man 
who  in  early  youth  had  been  trained  in  the  schools  of  the  Pharisees,  can- 
not'here  be  taken  into  account.  In  general,  we  must  not  proceed  on  the 
supposition  that  the  freer  mode  of  thinking  was  universal  among  the 
Hellenists.  If,  as  appears  from  Philo's  writings  this  was  not  the  case 
even  at  Alexandria,  where  the  Hellenic  element  of  culture  exerted  the 
greatest  influence  and  power,  still  less  are  we  justified  in  supposing  it  to 
have  been  with  the  Hellenists  generally,  among  whom  we  cannot  admit 
the  predominance  of  the  element  of  Grecian  culture  in  an  equal  degree. 
It  might  be  expected,  when  a  number  of  persons  had  devoted  them- 
selves so  much  to  a  foreign  element  of  culture  as  to  become  estranged 
from  the  Jewish,  that  others  would  be  so  much  more  mistrustful  of  all 
cultivation  of  the  Hellenic  element,  and  their  opposition  to  the  abuse  of 
freedom  would  drive  them  to  greater  illiberality  of  spirit,  servitude  to 
the  letter,  and  narrowness  of  views.  As  we  find  among  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  three  parties,  we  might  expect  a  similar  variety  among  the  Hellen- 
istic Jews.  The  family  of  Paul,  from  which  sprang  the  Pharisaic  pupil, 
was  probably  attached  rather  to  the  more  contracted,  than  to  the  liberal 
class.  Ananias,  the  teacher  of  Paul,  when  he  professed  himself  a  Chris- 
tian at  Damascus,  was  universally  respected  on  account  of  his  legal  piety, 
and  such  a  man  would  be  very  far  from  leading  Paul  in  the  direction 
which  the  apostle's  mind  afterwards  took.  We  might  rather  refer  it  to 
the  influence  of  the  liberal-minded  Christians,  who  had  proceeded  from 
the  midst  of  the  Hellenists  in  consequence  of  the  impulse  given  by  Ste- 
phen, and  of  the  influence  of  the  new  ideas  called  forth  by  that  martyr ; 
but  we  do  not  know,  whether  Paul  soon  after  his  conversion  came  into 
a  social  circle  where  influences  of  this  kind  would  act  upon  him,  and  at 
all  events  we  have  no  proof  of  it.  Setting  aside  the  Divine  element,  if 
we  consider  only  the  great  originality  of  Paul's  mind,  we  may  not  attri- 
bute too  much  to  determining  influences  from  without.  But  in  addition 
to  this,  there  was  the  extraordinary  nature  of  his  conversion  in  which 
the  Divine  element  so  powerfully  predominated,  by  which,  in  virtue  of 
that  immediate  communication  with  Christ,  he  was  placed  on  a  level 
with  the  other  apostles.  Hence  also  that  Christian  originality  which 
marked  the  apostles  in  consequence  of  their  personal  connexion  with 
Christ,  must  be  also  ascribed  to  him,  if  to  any  one.  And  that  it  was  so, 
he  testifies,  declaring  that  he  received  the  Gospel  not  from  men,  nor  was 
instructed  in  it  by  men,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ ;  that  as 


BY  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  09 

soon  as  God  had  revealed  his  Son  in  him  that  he  might  publish  him 
among  the  Gentiles,  he  at  once  sought  not  human  counsel,  nor  visited 
the  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  but  betook  himself  to  a  spot  the  furthest  from 
all  such  instruction,  where  he  must  derive  all  his  knowledge  from  an 
entirely  different  source.     See  Ep.  Galat.  c.  1. 

In  order  rightly  to  understand  the  whole  force  and  meaning  of  Paul's 
expressions  relative  to  that  internal  transaction  of  winch  he  alone  could 
testify,  we  must  first  of  all  understand  what  h*e  means  by  the  term  "  reve- 
lation," aTTondXmpig.  Everything  good  and  true  must  be  finally 
traced  back  to  the  Father  of  lights,  from  whom  all  lights  beam  forth  for 
the  spiritual  world  ;  his  revelation  in  all  must  be  acknowledged  ;  and 
especially  in  all  that  is  original  and  immediate  in  the  consciousness,  where 
from  the  hidden  depths  of  the  spirit,  by  virtue  of  the  root  of  our  exis- 
tence in  God,  the  light  of  new  creative  ideas  springs  up  in  the  soul. 
Thus,  if  Paul  had  not  more  distinctly  defined  the  idea  of  revelation,  we 
might  say  that  from  the  stand-point  of  religious  intuition,  looking  only 
at  the  Divine  causality,  and  not  regarding  natural  instrumentality,  he  had 
attributed  to  Divine  revelation  that  which  proceeded  from  within  by  the 
development  of  reason.  But  if  Paul  knew  this  idea  of  revelation  in  a  gen- 
eral sense,  and  expressly  distinguished  from  it  another  more  limited  idea, 
then  we  must  reject  the  supposition  that  he  only  by  a  peculiarity  of  re- 
ligious dialect  called  that  revelation  which  from  another  point  of  view 
might  be  otherwise  named.  He  had  in  fact  a  peculiar  word  to  designate 
that  general  idea  of  revelation  which  applies  to  all  consciousness  of  relig- 
ious and  moral  truth,  to  which  the  mind  is  led  by  the  contemplation  of 
creation,  or  by  entering  into  itself,  by  conscience  and  reason  ;  the  word 
"  manifest,"  (fravepovv,  which  he  uses  for  this  purpose  in  the  well-known 
passages  in  the  first  chapters  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans.  But  when 
he  speaks  of  what  can  be  known  neither  from  the  contemplation  of  crea- 
tion, nor  from  the  existence  of  reason  or  conscience,  but  only  by  a  com- 
munication of  the  Spirit  of  God,  differing  from  all  these,  and  newly  im- 
parted, he  uses  the  word  "  reveal,"  d-oKaXimretv.  Paul,  it  is  true,  also 
uses  the  more  general  designation,  the  word  (pavepovv,  for  that  which 
cannot  be  known  by  the  natural  medium  ;  but  no  passage  can  be  pointed 
out,  in  which  the  word  dTTOKaXvTrrecv  is  used  in  the  more  general  sense. 
•  Tholuck,  indeed,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  p.  72,  has  appealed  to  Phil.  hi.  15,  as  a  passage  to  which 
this  understanding  of  ?he  word  will  not  apply ;  and,  certainly,  there  is 
some  truth  at  the  basis  of  what  he  says.  No  doubt,  Paul  in  those  words 
was  not  thinking  merely  of  such  an  advance  of  insight  into  Christian 
truth  as  proceeds  from  an  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but 
instrumentality  by  a  process  of  thought  animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
also  included.  There  is,  without  doubt,  in  these  words,  not  merely  a 
reference  to  new  knowledge,  such  as  must  be  communicated  at  once  by 
the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  still  more  a  suggestion  that  Christians 
who  are  yet  immature  ought  to  learn  more  thoroughly,  and,  by  further 


100  SPREAD    OP   CHRISTIANITY 

meditation  carried  on  in  the  divine  illumination  which  they  have  already 
received,  or  more  fully  animated  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  whose  organs  they 
have  become,  ought  better  to  understand  the  contents  of  the  Christian 
truth  already  communicated  to  them  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  relation  of  the 
Gospel  to  the  Law,  and  the  consequences  developed  from  faith  in  the 
justification  obtained  through  Christ.  But  still  the  word  aTTOKaXv-irreiv 
here  retains  its  fundamental  meaning,  inasmuch  as  the  insight  spoken  of 
does  not  proceed  from  natural  reason,  but  is  obtained  only  by  the  new 
light  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here,  therefore,  we  may  also  apply  the  dis-  ' 
tinction  between  the  words  (pavepovv  and  aiTOK.aXvTxruv ;  only  Paul  does 
no't  distinguish  here  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  uptai 
the  soul,  which,  in  virtue  of  a  divine  light  at  once  rising  upon  it,  is  led 
to  the  consciousness  of  such  truths  as  could  not  be  known  by  unassisted 
natural  reason — and  the  further  development  of  these  truths  by  subse- 
quent thinking,  animated  and  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  Still  the 
divine  light,  always  to  be  distinguished  from  the  natural  reason,  into 
which  it  enters  as  something  new,  remains  the  fountain  whence  all  is 
drawn,  whether  the  original  and  the  immediate  Divine  communications, 
or  the  further  development  and  elaboration  of  the  original — the  reason, 
either  in  its  simple  receptivity,  or  in  its  self-activity  as  an  organ  working 
according  to  the  peculiar  laws  of  its  nature,  remaining  ever  an  organ  for 
the  higher  factor,  the  revealing  or  animating  Holy  Spirit.  Now,  inas- 
much as  everything  is  to  be  traced  back  to  this,  which,  without  its  aid, 
could  not  be  effected  by  the  unassisted  reason,  the  use  of  a-nonaXv-nreiv 
in  its  meaning  as  opposed  to  (pavepovv  is  suitable.  And  we  can  only  dis- 
tinguish in  the  application  of  this  word,  which  always  retains  its  own  pe- 
culiar meaning,  the  wider  and  the  more  limited  use  of  it — the  latter  when 
the  subject  spoken  of  is  the  original,  creative  operation  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  by  which  the  knowledge  of  things  hitherto  hidden  is  imparted ; 
the  aTTOKdXvxpig  in  such  a  sense  as  is  essential  to  the  gift  of  prophecy. 

It  is  therefore  plain,  that  when  Paul  attributes  all  his  knowledge  of 
Christian  truth  to  dnoicdXvipig,  he  traces  everything  back  to  an  internal 
Divine  causality.  But  here  the  question  arises,  whether,  in  reference  to 
all  which  Paul  knew  of  the  life,  the  ministry,  the  discourses,  and  com- 
mands of  Christ,  all  other  sources  of  knowledge  were  excluded,  and  only 
this  one  of  revelation  left.  In  this  case  a  supernatural  communication 
would  have  occupied  in  him  the  place  of  all  other  communications  through 
natural  human  instrumentality. 

But  it  contradicts  all  analogy  in  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operations 
in  laying  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  in  the  propagation 
of  Christianity,  that  what  was  matter  of  historical  tradition  should  be 
conveyed  into  the  consciousness  by  a  supernatural  revelation,  indepen- 
dent of  this  historical  connection.  The  office  of  the  Spirit,  of  whom 
Christ  says  that  he  shall  take  of  his  own,  and  bring  to  remembrance 
what  he  himself  had  spoken  on  earth,  was  not  just  to  create  a  tradi- 
tion  of  Christ's  words  independent  of  this  remembrance.     It  is  wholly 


BY   THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  101 

nnnatural  to  suppose  that  Christ  communicated  to  Paul,  in  special  visions, 
what  he  had  spoken  and  commanded  on  earth.  And  it  is  by  no  means 
in  contradiction  to  Paul's  asserted  independence  in  his  apostolic  vocation, 
that  he  obtained  the  historical  materials  of  Christ's  life  and  doctrine  from 
the  natural  source,  common  to  all,  of  tradition.  It  was  in  this  connec- 
tion enough,  and  the  only  important  point,  that  in  the  understanding  of 
the  truth  announced  by  Christ,  and  knowledge  of  its  nature,  he  was  de- 
pendent on  no  human  instruction,  but  drew  everything  from  the  iuward 
revelation  of  Christ,  from  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  Spirit,  who 
took  of  the  things  of  Christ,  and  brought  to  remembrance  what  he  had 
said,  performed  the  same  office  for  him  as  for  the  other  apostles.  On  all 
occasions  when  Paul  quotes  the  words  or  commands  of  Christ,  he  speaks 
in  a  manner  that  leads  us  to  think  of  no  other  source  of  knowledge  than 
that  of  tradition.  Thus  where  he  mentions  the  institution  of  the  Supper,* 
he  would  have  expressed  himself  quite  differently,  if  the  details  of  that 
institution  had  been  made  known  to  him  by  an  immediate  revelation 
from  the  Lord.  He  would  no  doubt  have  stated,  with  quite  different 
emphasis,  the  manner  in  which  he  had  been  informed  of  it. 

As  Paul  felt  himself  compelled  to  examine,  independently  of  others, 
the  depths  of  the  truth  made  known  by  Christ,  he  must  have  been 
specially  solicitous  to  obtain  a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Christ,  on 
which  all  further  developments  of  the  new  doctrine  must  depend,  and 
from  which  they  must  proceed.  We  cannot  suppose  that  he  would  satisfy 
himself  with  single  expressions  casually  obtained  from  oral  intercourse 
with  the  apostles,  whom  he  met  so  seldom,  and  for  so  short  a  time. 
Besides,  he  says  expressly,  in  his  Epistle  .to  the  Galatians,  that  these 
interviews  with  the  other  apostles  were  of  no  service  towards  his  ac- 
quiring a  deeper  insight  into  Christian  doctrine.  We  are  led  to  the 
supposition,  that  he  obtained  written  memoirs  of  the  life  of  Christ,  or  at 
least  a  written  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Christ,  if  such  existed,  or  that 
he  compiled  one  himself.  But  it  is  very  probable  that  such  a  collection, 
or  several  such  collections,  and  written  memoirs  of  Christ's  ministry, 
were  in  existence;  for,  however  highly  we  may  estimate  the  power  of 
the  living  word  in  this  youthful  period  of  the  Church,  we  cannot  allow 
ourselves  to  forget  that  we  are  not  speaking  of  an  age  of  legends,  but  of 
one,  especially  wherever  Grecian  cultivation  had  found  its  way,  of  great 


*  1  Cor.  xi.  23.  On  this  passage,  Schulz  justly  remarks,  that  Paul  uses  (iii)  not  napa 
to  signify  that  what  he  "  received "  was  not  immediately  but  mediately  from  the  Lord. 
What  has  been  said  by  Olshausen  and  Meyer  (on  different  grounds)  against  this  interpre- 
tation, has  not  induced  me  to  give  it  up.  Nor  does  it  render  the  expression  "  received  from 
the  Lord"  (napElajiov  dnb  tov  nvpiov)  by  any  means  useless.  It  was  not  the  apostle's  de- 
sign to  mark  the  manner  in  which  this  tradition  came  to  him,  but  only  to  represent  as 
certain  that  this  was  the  form  in  which  the  Lord  had  instituted  the  Last  Supper;  hence, 
also,  the  repetition  of  the  term  Kvpioc  is  not  improper.  Had  Paul  been  speaking  of  a 
special  revelation,  by  which  this  information  was  imparted,  he  would  scarcely  have  signi- 
fied it  by  "received,"  naptlaiiov,  but  rather  by  "was  revealed,"  dneKalv^ri. 


102  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY 

literary  activity.  Might  we  not  expect,  then,  that  some  memorials 
would  be  speedily  committed  to  writing  of  what  moved  their  hearts,  and 
occupied  their  thoughts  so  intensely  ;  although  a  longer  time  might  elapse 
before  any  one  resolved  to  attempt  a  delineation  of  the  whole  life  of 
Christ  ?*  Many  allusions  to  expressions  of  Christ  in  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
besides  his  direct  quotations  of  Christ's  words,  point  to  such  a  collection 
of  his  discourses,  of  which  the  apostle  availed  himself.f  Where  Paul,  in 
his  Epistles,  speaks  of  the  imitation  of  Christ,  he  speaks  as  if  a  distinct 
historical  image  of  the  Saviour  was  well  known  throughout  the  Church ; 
and  taking  everything  together,. we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  he 

*  Eusebius,  as  is  known,  narrates  (V.  10),  probably  in  consequence  of  information  de- 
rived from  Pantsenus,  that  the  apostle  Bartholomew  had  communicated  to  the  so-called 
Indians  to  whom  he  published  the  gospel,  a  Hebrew  original  document  of  the  Evangelical 
History  drawn  up  by  Matthew,  which  account  we  are  plainly  not  justified  to  call  in  ques- 
tion. This  original  document  may  indeed  be  the  same  which  Papias  (Eusebius  iii.  39)  en- 
titles "an  arranged  collection  of  the  discourses  of  the  Lord,"  avvra^ic  tQv  2.oyiuv  tov  Kvpiov. 
And  I  should  by  no  means  object  to  understanding  this  to  be  a  collection  of  the  discourses 
of  the  Lord — for  it  is  in  itself  very  probable  that  such  a  compilation  would  be  early  made 
as  source  and  material  for  the  development  of  Christian  doctrine-^if  what  he  had  before 
said  of  Mark's  writings  did  not  intimate  that  he  meant  both  the  discourses  and  actions  of 
Christ ;  for  I  cannot,  with  Schneckenburger,  find  the  distinction,  that  Mark  had  compiled 
a  report  of  the  discourses  and  actions  of  Christ,  but  Matthew  only  of  his  discourses.  In 
this  case,  Papias  would  have  laid  the  emphasis  on  "  discourses,"  Myia,  and  have  said  rtiv 
%oyiuv  tov  Kvpiov  cvvra^tv;  but  the  emphasis  rests  on  the  word  aivra^ic,  an  orderly 
collection,  not  mere  insulated  fragments,  yet,  I  must  add,  in  limitation  of  what  I  have 
here  said,  and  of  what  Dr.  Lucke  has  said  before  me  in  the  Studien  und  Kriliken,  1833, 
p.  501,  that  while  the  emphasis  certainly  rests  upon  the  word  ovvrafrc,  as  contrasted  with 
a  fragmentary  description,  yet  it  might  also  be  that  Papias  wished  to  contrast  the  work 
of  Mark  as  a  fragmentary  collection  of  the  discourses  and  actions  of  Christ,  with  the  work 
of  Matthew  as  an  arranged  collection  of  the  sayings  of  the  Lord  alone.  Lastly,  he  saya 
this  only  in  a  secondary  sense  of  Mark.  The  words  peculiarly  apply  to  Peter,  from  whose 
discourses  Mark  must  have  borrowed  the  materials  and  the  form  of  his  work.  Of  Peter, 
be  says,  of  npbg  rue  X9e'iac  inoielro  rue  SidaoKaliac,  dXX'  oix  uoirsp  avvra^iv  tojv  Kvpiaxuv 
iroiovfievoc  "koyluiv,  "  who  had  composed  his  addresses  according  to  the  wants  of  his 
hearers  at  the  time,  and  not  with  the  intention  of  giving  an  orderly  account  of  the  dis- 
courses or  sayings  of  Christ."  Therefore,  Mark,  who  drew  all  hisi  information  from  these 
addresses,  could  compile  nothing  of  that  kind.  The  words  of  Papias  are  therefore  rather 
favorable  than  unfavorable  to  the  supposition,  that  the  original  work  of  Matthew  was  only 
a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Christ,  as  Schleiermacher  maintained.  As  Bartholomew 
took  such  a  document  with  him  for  his  mission,  and  so  in  like  manner  other  preachers  of 
the  gospel  may  have  done,  it  may  be  now  that  Paul  himself  obtained  this  same  document 
or  another.  The  Judaizing  tendency  of  the  document  derived  from  Matthew,  alleged  by 
many,  by  no  means  prevents  me  from  admitting  this ;  it  contains  expressions  which,  by 
Ebionites  cleaving  to  the  letter  might  be  interpreted  according  to  their  miud ;  but  in 
which  Paul,  who  penetrated  deeper  into  the  spirit,  would  find  an  entirely  different  idea.— 
See  Life  of  Christ.     Index  s.  v.  Paul. 

+  Life  of  Christ.  See  Index  v.  Paul.  Perhaps  Marcion  who  held  only  Paul  as  in- 
spired authority,  had  heard  of  a  compilation  of  the  Memoirs  of  Christ,  which  had  been 
used  by  his  favorite  apostle,  and  ho  wished,  by  his  criticism,  to  gather  it  out  again  from 
Luke's  Gospel,  which  did  not  altogether  conform  to  what  be  considered  as  Pauline. 


BY  THE   APOSTLE   PAUL.  103 

made  use  of  an  original  historical  record  respecting  Christ's  ministry  in 
his  addresses  as  a  point  of  connexion  for  his  instructions,  which  shorter 
record  fell  into  oblivion  when  the  canonical  Gospels  had  attained  to 
general  notoriety  and  repute. 

We  may  therefore  suppose,  that  Paul,  making  use  of  such  historical 
materials,  learned  to  understand  and  develop  from  them  the  substance  of 
Christ's  discourses  and  the  import  of  the  transactions  of  his  life,  as  also 
the  substance  of  the  truth  revealed  by  Him  'x  this  he  did  by  such  special 
communications,  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  as  we  have  distinguished  by  the 
name  of  "  revelations,"  (dnofcahvipeis),  and  by  his  own  mental  activity 
animated  by  the  same  Spirit  from  whom  these  original  movements  pro- 
ceeded ;  by  this  activity  he  developed  still  further,  according  to  the  de- 
ductions they  offered,  and  in  relation  to  the  controversies  of  his  times, 
the  truths  which  had  been  introduced  into  his  consciousness  by  those 
a-xoaakvipeig.  The  manner  in  which  he  accomplished  this  was  determined 
by  the  manner  in  which  he  himself  had  been  converted,  and  by  his  dia- 
lectic cast  of  mind  as  developed  in  the  Pharisaic  school.  Thus  we  can 
make  it  very  evident  to  ourselves,  how  so  many  deep  truths  expressed 
by  him,  (as,  for  example,  on  the  relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Gospel,) 
unfolded  themselves  to  him  from  a  prescient  hint*  given  by  Christ  him- 
self. * 

If,  therefore,  we  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  peculiarities  of 
Paul's  views  respecting  the  relation  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel 
were  early  developed  in  his  mind,  we  can  at  once  account  for  his  being 
led  in  his  disputes  with  the  Hellenists  to  exhibit  this  side  of  evangelical 
truth  more  freely,  and  thus  to  excite  still  more  the  anger  of  the  Jews. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  prospect  opened  to  him  of  a  wider  sphere  of 
action  among  heathen  nations.  As  he  was  one  day  in  the  temple,  and  by 
prayer  lifting  up  his  soul  to  the  Lord,  he  was  borne  aloft  from  earthly 
things.  In  a  vision  he  received  an  assurance  from  the  Lord,  that  though 
he  would  be  able  to  effect  nothing  at  Jerusalem,  on  account  of  the  ani- 
mosity of  the  Jews,  he  was  destined  to  carry  the  doctrine  of  salvation  to 
other  nations,  even  in  remote  regions  ;  Acts  xxii.  21.  Accordingly,  after 
staying  in  Jerusalem  not  more  than  fourteen  days,  he  was  obliged  to  leave 
it,  through  the  machinations  of  the  Jews.  He  now  returned  to  his  native 
place,  Tarsus,  wbere  he  spent  several  years,  certainly  not  in  inactivity  ; 
for  by  his  labors  the  gospel  was  spread  among  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  in 
Tarsus  and  throughout  Cilicia  ;  there  is  good  reason  for  believing,  that  to 
him  the  Gentile  churches,  which  in  a  short  time  we  find  in  Cilicia,  owed 
their  origin.]; 


*  Of  course,  I  do  not  mean  that  which  Christ  himself  only  possessed,  as  the  fulness  ol 
prescience ;  but  that  which  presented  itself  to  him  who  received  it  with  a  susceptible  dis 
position,  as  the  germ  of  a  new  spiritual  creation. 

t  Life  of  Christ.  Index,  see  PauL 

\  The  silence  of  the  Acts  respecting  the  labors  of  Paul  in  Cilicia,  cannot  be  brought  aa 
evidence  against  the  fact,  for  the  account  it  gives  of  this  period  has  many  lacunae.     From 


104  FIRST   SPREAD   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTEE  II.. 

THE  CHURCH  AT  ANTIOCH  THE  GENTILE  MOTHER-CHURCH,  AND  ITS  RELATION 
TO  THE  JEWISH  MOTHER-CHURCH. 

In  the  mean  time,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  Christianity  was  pro- 
pagated among  the  Gentiles  by  Hellenist  teachers*  in  Antioch,  the  me- 
tropolis of  Eastern  Roman  Asia.  The  news  of  this  event  excited  great 
interest  among  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  true,  the  information 
was  received  more  favorably  than  it  would  have  been,  if  the  account  of 
the  operation  of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles  in  the  conversion  of 
Cornelius  had  not  materially  contributed  to  allay  their  prejudices.  But 
still  a  measure  of  mistrust  was  prevalent  against  the  Gentile  believers 
who  were  non-observant  of  the  Mosaic  law,  a  feeling  which,  after  many 
repeated  exhibitions  of  the  divine  power  of  the  gospel  among  Gentile 
Christians,  lingered  for  a  long  time  in  the  majority  of  Jewish  believers. 
On  this  account,  Barnabas,f  a  teacher  who  stood  high  in  the  general 
confidence,  and  who  as  a  Hellenist  was  better  fitted  to  deal  with  Chris- 
tians of  the  same  class,  was  commissioned  to  visit  the  new  Gentile  con- 
verts. On  his  arrival  he  rejoiced  at  witnessing  the  genuine  effects  of  the 
gospel,  and  used  his  utmost  endeavors  to  advance  the  work.  The  exten- 
sive prospect  which  opened  here  for  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  occasioned  his  inviting  Paul,  who  had  been  active  among  the  Gen- 
tiles in  Cilicia,  to  become  his  fellow-laborer.     One  evidence  of  the  power 

the  manner  in  which  Paul  is  mentioned  as  secondary  to  Barnabas,  till  the  time  of  their 
first  missionary  journey,  an  argument  might  be  drawn  for  his  not  having  previously  entered 
on  any  independent  sphere  of  labor.  But  the  case  may  be,  that  though  Paul,  as  the 
younger  and  less  known,  was  at  first  spoken  of  as  subordinate  to  Barnabas,  the  elder  and 
approved  publisher  of  the  gospel ;  yet,  by  degrees,  Paul's  extraordinary  activity  gave  a 
different  aspect  to  their  relative  position.  In  Jerusalem  they  continued  for  a  longer  time 
to  assign  the  priority  to  Barnabas,  as  appears  from  the  apostolic  Epistle  in  Acts  xv.  25,  a 
circumstance  which  Bleek  very  justly  adduces  as  a  mark  of  the  unaltered  originality  of 
this  document;  v.  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1836,  part  iv.  p.  1037.  At  all  events,  one  would 
rather  assign  a  date  some  years  later  to  the  conversion  of  Paul,  (on  which,  too,  we  can 
never  come  to  a  decisive  conclusion,)  than  suppose  that  he  could  spend  several  years  in 
his  native  place  without  exerting  himself  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity, — he  who, 
as  he  solemnly  declares,  had,  from  the  time  of  his  conversion,  felt  so  strongly  the  impulse  of 
an  inward  call  to  preach  the  gospel. 

*  Bee  p.  65. 

f  When  Baur,  in  the  work  already  quoted,  p.  40,  casts  a  doubt  on  this  mission  of 
Barnabas  from  Jerusalem,  and  thinks  that  after  the  dispersion  of  the  Hellenists  occasioned 
by  the  persecution  raised  against  Stephen,  he  had  sought  to  form  an  independent  sphere 
of  action  out  of  Jerusalem,  we  have  only  a  specimen  of  those  arbitrary  conclusions  and 
combinations  raised  to  the  dignity  of  facts  by  Dr.  Baur,  of  which  we  have  pointed  out 
the  worthlessness. 


CHURCH   AT   ANTIOCH.  105 

with  which  Christianity  in  an  independent  manner  spread  itself  among 
the  Gentiles,  was  the  new  name  of  Christians  which  was  here  given  to 
believers.  Among  themselves  they  were  called,  the  Disciples  of  the  Lord, 
the  Disciples  of  Jesus,  the"  Brethren,  the  Believers.  By  the  Jews  names 
were  imposed  upon  them  which  implied  undervaluation  or  contempt,  such 
as  the  Galileans,  the  Nazarenes,  the  Paupers  ;  and  Jews  would  of  course 
not  give  them  a  name  meaning  the  adherents  of  the  Messiah.  The  Gen- 
tiles had  hitherto,  on  account  of  their  observance  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
not  known  how  to  distinguish  them  from  Jews.  But  now,  when  Chris- 
tianity was  spread  among  the  Gentiles  apart  from  the  observance  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  its  professors  appeared  as  an  entirely  new  religious  sect 
(a  genus  tertium,  as  they  were  afterwards  termed,  being  neither  Jews 
nor  Gentiles) ;  and  as  the  term  Christ  was  held  to  be  a  proper  name,  the 
adherents  of  the  new  religious  teacher  were  distinguished  by  a  word 
formed  from  it,  as  the  adherents  of  any  school  of  philosophy  were  wont 
to  be  named  after  its  founder.* 

Antioch  from  this  time  occupied  a  most  important  position  in  the  devel- 
opment of  Christianity.  There  were  now  two  central  points  for  the  spread 
of  it ;  what  Jerusalem  had  hitherto  been  for  this  purpose  among  the 
Jews,  that  Antioch  now  became  among  the  Gentiles.  Here,  first,  the 
two  modes  of  apprehending  Christianity,  distinguished  from  one  another 
by  the  predominance  of  the  Jewish  or  Gentile  element,  came  into  contact 
and  conflict.  As  at  Alexandria,  at  a  later  period,  the  development  of 
Christianity  had  to  experience  the  effect  of  various  mixtures  of  the  an- 
cient oriental  modes  of  thinking  with  the  mental  cultivation  of  the  Gre- 
cian schools,  so  in  this  Roman  metropolis  of.  Eastern  Asia,  it  met  with 
various  mixtures  of  the  oriental  forms  of  religious  belief.  From  Antioch, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  proceeded  the  system  of  an 
oriental  anti-Jewish  Gnosis,  which  opposed  Christianity  to  Judaism. 

As  there  was  considerable  intercourse  between  the  two  churches  at 
Jerusalem  and  Antioch,  Christian  teaohers  frequently  came  from  the 
former  to  the  latter  ;  among  these  was  a  prophet  named  Agabus,  who 
prophesied  of  an  approaching  famine,  which  would  be  felt  severely  by  a 
great  number  of  poor  Christians  in  Jerusalem,  and  he  called  upon  the 
believers  of  Antioch  to  assist  their  poorer  brethren.  This  famine  actually 
occurred  in  Palestine  about  a.d.  44.f 

*  When  we  take  into  account  the  great  influence  of  the  Latin  language,  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  government  in  this  chief  city  of  Roman  Asia,  we  shall  certainly  find  no 
ground  in  the  Latin  form  of  the  name  to  doubt,  with  Baur  (p.  90),  the  truth  of  this  ac- 
count of  its  origin,  and  to  find  in  it  an  anachronism. 

f  We  cannot  fix  the  exact  time  when  this  famine  began.  It  is  mentioned  by  Josephus 
in  his  Antiq.  Book  xx.  ch.  2,  §  5.  It  was  so  great  that  numbers  died  in  it  from  want. 
Queen  Helena  of  Adiabene  in  Syria,  a  convert  to  Judaism,  sent  vessels  laden  with  corn, 
which  she  had  purchased  at  Alexandria,  and  with  figs  procured  in  the  island  of  Cyprus, 
to  Jerusalem,  and  caused  these  provisions  to  be  distributed  among  the  poor.  Luke,  in. 
deed,  speaks  of  a  famine  that  spread  itself  over  the  whole  "  habitable  world,"  (o'tKovpevri) 
which  was  not  the  case  with  this.     To  understand  by  olnovfiivri  in  this  passage,  Palestine 


106  SPREAD   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

.  The  faculty  of  foretelling  future  events,  did  not  necessarily  enter  intc 
the  New  Testament  idea  of  a  prophet,  assuming  now  that  Luke  wrote 
from  his  own  point  of  view.  An  address  fitted  to  produce  a  powerful  effect 
on  an  audience,  one  by  which  Christians  woifld  be  excited  to  deeds  of 
beneficence,  would  correspond  to  the  marks  of  a  prophetic  address  in  the 
New  Testament  sense ;  but  as  in  the  Acts  it  is  expressly  added  that  the 
famine  foretold  by  the  prophet  actually  came  to  pass,  we  must  doubtless 
admit,  in  this  instance,  that  there  was  a  prediction  of  an  impending 
famine,  although  it  is  possible  that  the  prophecy  was  founded  on  the 
observation  of  natural  prognostics. 

The  Christians  at  Antioch  felt  themselves  bound  to  assist,  in  its  tem- 
poral distress,  that  church  from  which  they  had  received  the  highest' 
spiritual  benefits,  and  probably  sent  their  contributions  before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  famine,  by  the  hands  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  the  presiding 
elders  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  This  church,  having  enjoyed  about 
eight  years'  peace  after  the  persecution  that  ensued  on  Stephen's  martyr- 
dom, was  once  more  assailed  by  a  violent  but  transient  tempest.  King 
Herod  Agrippa,  to  whom  the  Emperor  Claudius  had  granted  the  govern- 
ment of  Judea,  affected  great  zeal  for  the  strict  observance  of  the  ancient 
ritual,*  although  on  many  occasions  he  acted  contrary  to  it,  on  purpose 
to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  Gentiles,  just  as  by  his  zeal  for  Judaism  he 
tried  to  attach  the  Jewish  people  to  himself.  Actuated  by  such  motives, 
he  thought  it  expedient  to  manifest  hostility  to  the  teachers  of  the  new 
doctrine,  of  whom  he  had  received  unfavorable  reports. 

It  is  possible,  that  at  that  time  the  displeasure  of  the  king  or  of  the 
fanatical  multitude  was  excited  anew  by  special  circumstances.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  brother  of  John,  was 
the  first  object  of  their  persecution.  It  may  have  been  at  first  only  a 
hostility  directed  against  him  personally,  and  occasioned,  perhaps,  by 
something  which  he  had  said  or  done.  We  must  bear  in  mind,  that  he 
who  was  at  the  same  time  one  of  the  sons  of  thunder,  and  like  his  brother, 
one  of  those  disciples  who  stood  nearest  to  Christ,  must  have  had  pecu- 
liarities, some  kindred  to,  and  some  quite  different  from,  those  of  his 
brother.  We  have  to  regard  him,  as  well  as  John,  as  one  who  had  ap- 
prehended with  peculiar  depth  the  doctrines  of  Christ.  We  can  easily 
discern  how  such  a  one  could  give  special  offence  to  narrow-minded  zea- 
lots, although  there  are  no  historical  traces  which  exactly  determine  the 
fact.  Since  now  the  king,  who  would  make  himself  popular  by  his  zeal 
for  the  old  religious  law,  perceived  that  the  execution  of  James  won  the 
approbation!  of  the  people,  he  determined  to  consign  Peter  to  a  similar  fate. 

only,  is  not  justified  by  the  New  Testament  phraseology;  but  it  is  possible  that  the 
famine  extended  to  other  parts,  and  we  must  then  suppose  the  word  to  be  used  somewhat 
rhetorically,  and  hot  with  literal  exactness,  especially  if  we  consider  it  as  spoken  by  a 
prophet  come  from  Jerusalem. 

*  Josephus,  Antiq.  Book  xix.  ch.  6  and  7. 

f  The  arguments  brought  forward  by  Baur,  p.  188,  do  not  make  out  a  falsehood  in  the 


CHURCH    AT   ANTIOCH.  107 

But  on  account  of  the  feast — the  Passover  in  the  year  44* — he  at  first 
only  cast  him  into  prison.  But  by  the  special  providence  of  God,  Peter 
was  delivered  from  prison,  and  the  death  of  the  king,  which  shortly  fol- 
lowed, once  more  gave  peace  to  the  church. 

If  Paul  and  Barnabas  arrived  at  Jerusalem  during  this  disturbed  state 
of  things  (assuming  that  Paul  accompanied  Barnabas)  their  stay  was 
necessarily  shortened  by  it,  and  they  could  accomplish  nothing  of  conse- 
quence.f  But  if  we  compare  the  account  in  the  Acts  with  the  narrative 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  if  we  assume  that 
the  journey  to  Jerusalem,  which  he  there  mentions  as  the  second,  was 
really  the  second,  according  to  the  order  in  the  Acts,  then,  this  journey 
would  acquire  great  importance. J     We  must  then  assume,  that  although 

statement,  that  the  king  sought  to  gain  the  favor  of  the  people  by  this  proceeding  against 
the  Christians.  Although,  on  the  whole,  the  Christians  were  tolerated  among  the  Jews 
as  a  Jewish  sect,  yet  this  does  not  exclude  the  fact,  that  the  rage  of  the  fanatical  rnuitl- 
tude  might  have  broken  forth  against  them  on  special  occasion,  and  that  one,  who  pre- 
tended to  persecute  the  new  sect  out  of  zeal  for  the  old  religious  law,  may  have  used  the 
occurrence  to  win  favor  to  himself.  If  at  a  later  time,  the  execution  of  James  the  Just 
was  condemned  by  those  whom  Josephus  calls  the  better  class  of  the  Jews ;  yet  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  at  this  time  the  proceedings  against  the  Christians  were  judged  of  in 
just  the  same  way.  People  in  their  treatment  of  tolerated  sects  are  not  always  con- 
sistent. Very  much  depends  on  special  circumstances  and  the  mood  of  the  moment.  "We 
yield  here  to  the  Acts  the  greater  confidence  that  it  in  no  way  mistakes  the  difficult  rela- 
tion between  the  Jews  and  the  Christians.  We  believe  ourselves  compelled  to  say  this  in 
the  spirit  of  careful,  and,  in  matters  of  doubt,  even  of  scrupulous,  inquiry,  although  we 
could,  on  reasonable  grounds,  admit  an  error  here  in  the  historical  representation,  without 
discrediting  the  essential  truth  of  the  transaction. 

*  For  it  was  the  last  year  of  Herod  Agrippa's  reign,  who  held  for  at  least  three  whole 
years  the  sovereignty  of  Judea,  (Joseph,  xix.  8,  2  ;)  and,  therefore,  certainly  reigned  from 
the  end  of  January,  41,  to  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Claudius,  the  end  of  January,  44- 
so  that  only  the  Passover  of  this  last  year  could  be  intended,  that  which  took  place  after 
Herod  had  reigned  three  whole  years. 

f  As  the  words  "  about  that  time,"  /car'  ekeZvov  tov  naipbv,  in  Acts  xii.  1,  cannot  serve 
for  fixing  the  exact  date,  the  coincidence  of  this  journey  of  Paul's  with  these  events  at 
Jerusalem,  and  the  whole  chronology  founded  upon  it  of  the  apostle's  history,  is  not  abso- 
lutely certain.     Yet  there  is,  at  least,  no  valid  argument  against  this  arrangement. 

%  Irenseus  adv.  Haeres.  lib.  iii.  c.  13,  seems  to  consider  it  as  settled  that  this,  mentioned 
as  second  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  was  Paul's  third  journey.  But  what  Tertullian 
says  (contra  Marcion,  1.  20),  goes  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  his  second  journey.  He 
alleges  the  same  reason  for  thinking  so,  as  Keil,inhis  essay  on  the  subject  lately  published 
in  his  Opuscula ;  that  Paul,  in  the  first  glow  of  his  conversion,  was  more  violent  against 
Judaism,  but  later  his  feelings  towards  it  were  mollified.  Thus  he  explains  the  dispute 
with  Peter  at  Antioch.  "  Paulus  adhuc  in  gratia  rudis,  ferventer,  ut  adhuc  neophytus, 
adversHs  Judaismum."  ("Paul  as  yet  immature  in  grace,"  — " fervently,  as  yet  a 
neophyte,  against  Judaism^')  (It  is  contradictory  to  this  supposition  that  he  allows 
Paul  to  have  given  way  to  the  Judaizers  at  Jerusalem,  in  reference  to  the  circumcision  of 
Titus,  cont.  Marcion,  V.  3\  And  certainly  it  would  better  correspond  with  the  character 
of  Paul  and  the  mode  of  his  conversion,  that,  at  first,  he  should  engage  in  fiercer  opposi- 
tion to  the  observance  of  the  law,  than  that  his  mind  should  gradually  be  developed  in 
that  freer  direction.  Yet  this  supposition,  that  it  was  his  second  journey,  as  we  shall 
afterwards  show,  is  by  no  means  supported  by  historical  evidence.    What  is  advanced 


108  SPREAD    OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

the  conveyance  of  the  collection  to  Jerusalem  was  the  avowed  object  and 
motive  of  this  journey,  yet  Paul  himself  had  another  and  more  im- 
portant end  in  view,  which  probably  induced  him  to  be  the  bearer  of  the 
contributions.  It  could  be  said,  that  as  the  strictly  Pharisaical  Jews 
held  it  absolutely  necessary  for  the"  Gentiles  to  submit  to  the  whole 
ceremonial  law,  and  particularly  to  circumcision,*  in  order  to  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  theocracy ;  as  the  mistrust  of  the  Jewish  Christians  had  al- 
ready, as  we  have  before  remarked,  manifested  itself  against  the  Gentile 
converts  ;  and  as  the  consequences  of  this  state  of  feeling  might  have 
already  appeared  in  the  church  at  Antioch,  which  stood  in  so  close  a 
connexion  with  the  parent  church  at  Jerusalem  ;  it  is  not  at  all  improb- 
able, that  Paul  and  Barnabas  felt  it  to  be  their  imperative  duty,  in  order 
to  guard  against  a  dangerous  disagreement,  to  come  to  an  understanding 
with  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  on  this  subject,  and  to  unite  with  them  in 
establishing  fixed  principles  respecting  it.  It  is,  rather,  in  itself  more 
probable,  that  such  a  mutual  explanation  took  place  earlier,  than  that  it 
occurred  at  a  later  period.f  It  is  true,  such  a  conference  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  with  the  three  most  eminent  of  the  apostles,  could  not  well  be 
held  at  that  time,  since  one  of  them  was  cast  into  prison  ;  but  too  great 
an  uncertainty  is  attached  to  the  dates  of  these  events,  to  render  this 


by  "Wurm,  in  his  essay  already  quoted,  in  the  Tubingen  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  against 
my  application  of  the  first  passage  from  Tertullian,  is  not  just.  I  have  myself  here  re- 
marked on  the  contradiction  between  the  two  passages,  and  in  a  writer  of  Tertullian's 
cast  of  mind — highly  as  we  esteem  the  depth,  fire,  and  vigor  of  his  genius — such  a  con- 
tradiction is  not  very  surprising. — But  from  Tertull.  c.  Marcion,  lib.  V.  2,  3,  it  is  by  no 
means  clear,  that  he  considered  the  second  journey  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  as  the  same  with  that  which  was  followed  by  the  resolutions  of  the  apostolic  as- 
sembly at  Jerusalem.  Tertullian  only  says,  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — whose  credi- 
bility was  not  acknowledged  by  Marcion — represented  the  principles  on  which  Paul 
acted  not  differently  from  what  Paul  states  them  to  be  in  an  Epistle  admitted  as  genuine 
by  Marcion ;  consequently,  the  account  of  Luke,  in  this  respect,  must  be  credible.  So 
then,  Tertullian,  i.  9,  by  rudis  fides  means  the  same  as  in  the  passage  first  quoted.  The 
rudis  fides  in  that  passage,  is  a  faith  still  young  and  not  fully  tried,  which  hence  oould  not 
possess  so  independent  an  authority ;  "  hoc  enim"  "  for  this"  (the  temporary  concession  in 
reference  to  the  circumcision  of  Titus)  rudi  fidei  et  adhuc  de  legis  observatione  suspenses  ' '  to 
an  immature  faith,  as  yet  in  suspense  concerning  the  observance  of  the  law,'' (in  reference 
to  which  it  was  still  disputed  whether  they  were  not  bound  to  the  observance  of  the  law) 
competebat,"  "  was  suited,"  namely,  until  Paul  had  succeeded  in  having  his  independent  call 
to  the  apostleship  and  its  peculiar  grounds  acknowledged  by  the  other  apostles. 

*  A  Jewish  merchant,  named  Ananias,  who  had  converted  King  Izates  of  Adiabene, 
the  son  of  Queen  Helena,  to  Judaism,  assured  him  that  he  might  worship  Jehovah  with- 
out being  circumcised,  and  even  sought  to  dissuade  him  from  it,  that  it  might  not  cause 
an  insurrection  of  his  people.  But  when  another  stricter  Jew,  Eleazar,  came  thither,  he 
declared  to  the  king  that  since  he  acknowledged  the  divine  authority  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
he  would  sin  by  neglecting  any  of  its  commands,  and  therefore  no  consideration  ought  to 
prevent  his  compliance.  Joseph.  Archaeol.  lib.  xx.  c.  2,  §  4.  And  such  was  the  opinion 
of  the  converts  to  Christianity  from  among  the  Jews,  who,  to  use  the  words  of  Josephus, 
were  dxoipels  nepl  t&  Trdrpia,   "  strict  concerning  ancestral  institutions." 

f  As  Dr.  Paulus  remarks  in  his  Exegetical  Manual,  1,  i.  p.  238. 


CHURCH   AT   ANTIOCH.  109 

objection  of  much  weight.  And  it  harmonizes  well  also  with  this  view, 
that  this  conference  is  represented  as  a,  private*  transaction,  of  Paul's 
with  the  most  eminent  of  the  apostles  ;  partly  because  the  matter  ap- 
pears not  yet  to  have  been  sufficiently  ripe  for  a  public  discussion  ;  partly 
because  by  the  persecution  set  on  foot  by  King  Agrippa,  the  intended 
public  conference  could  have  been  prevented.  By  this  supposition,  we 
should  gain  therefore  a  connecting  link  in  the  history  of  the  transactions 
between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts,  and  the  two  historical  docu- 
ments, the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  would 
each  supply  what  is  necessary  for  the  completion  of  the  other.  But,  in 
the  first  place,  the  chronology  of  the  common  reading,  supported  by  the 
authority  of  all  the  manuscripts,!  is  irreconcilable  with  this  hypothesis, 
for  we  must  then  reckon  Paul's  conversion  to  have  taken  place  at  least 
fourteen  years  earlier,  which  would  be  a  computation  wholly  untenable. 
And,  secondly,  the  relation  in  which  Paul,  according  to  the  description 
in  the  Acts,  stood,  up  to  a  certain  time,  to  Barnabas,  the  elder  preacher 
of  the  gospel,  will  not  agree  with  this  view.  For  at  an  earlier  period, 
according  to  the  slight  notices  furnished  us  by  the  Acts,  Paul  appears 
in  a  subordinate  relation,  both  of  age  and  discipleship,  to  the  elder 
preacher  of  the  gospel.  It  was  not  till  he  undertook  the  missionary 
journey  with  Barnabas  from  Antioch,  in  which  he  was  the  most  prom- 
inent agent,  that  that  apostolic  superiority  developed  itself,  which  was 

*  The  "but  privately,"  na?  Idiav  6s,  Gal.  ii.  2,  which  contains  an  antithesis  to  "  in  pub- 
lic," dnpoaia.  Yet  public  conferences  are  by  no  means  excluded ;  for  it  is  not  clear  that  the 
words  kot'  Idiav  d£  follow  what  was  before  said, merely  as  a  limiting  explanatory  clause. 
Paul,  certainly,  might,  from  the  whole  conference  in  which  he  communicated  to  them 
(dvedifiev  avrolc,)  (which  may  refer  to  the  brethren  generally)  an  expression  which 
includes  all  that  he  transacted  at  Jerusalem — have  singled  out  some  circumstance  to  him 
of  special  importance,  viz.,  his  private  interviews  with  James,  Peter,  and  John,  or  he 
might  at  first,  have  noticed  only  the  public,  and  afterwards  the  important  private  con- 
ferences, altogether  passing  over  the  former.     Compare  "Wurm,  p.  51;  Anger,  p.  149. 

f  The  Chronicon  Paschale  Alexandrinum,  ed.  Niebuhr,  p.  436,  cites  an  opinion  accord- 
ing to  which  Paul  must  have  taken  this  second  journey  four  years  after  his  conversion; 
and  this  computation  certainly  assumes  the  reading  to  be  "  four  years,"  reaadpuv  kruv, 
instead  of  "  fourteen"  deKareca.  This  reading  being  assumed,  it  may  be  readily  under- 
stood how  the  preceding  word  (Sea)  could  have  occasioned  the  change  of  A  into  IA.  And 
according  to  this  reading,  if  we  refer  this  to  the  second  journey  of  Paul  mentioned  in 
the  Acts,  other  dates  will  readily  agree ;  only,  if  we  reckon  these  four  years  from  the 
conversion  of  St.  Paul,  that  event  must  be  placed  about  the  year  40.  But  still  it  re- 
mains uncertain,  whether  the  computation  cited,  in  the  Chronicon  Paschale  is  fouuded  on 
a  critical  conjecture,  or  on  the  authority  of  a  manuscript ;  and,  at  all  events,  the  opposing 
evidence  of  all  manuscripts  and  quotations  from  the  Fathers  is  too  important. — (Conybeare 
and  Howson  in  their  excellent  work,  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  p.  233,  n.  5,  say  :— 
"  Neander,  by  mistake,  asserts  that  the  Chronicon  Paschale  reads  reaadpuv  ;  but  the  re- 
verse is  the  fact." — Neander  only  says  that  the  passage  referred  to  by  him  contains  an 
opinion  which  assumes  that  readiug,  and  he  immediately  notices  the  uncertain  basis  of 
the  assumption.  This  opinion  is  found  not  in  that  part  of  the  passage  in  the  Chron.  Pas. 
quoted  by  Conybeare  and  Howson,  but  in  the  sentence  containing  the  words  Irn  Ttoaapa 
which  they  think  relate  to  a  different  subject. — Ed.) 


110  SPREAD   OF   CHRISTIANITY 

afterwards  exhibited  in  the  transactions  at  Jerusalem.  Still  we  cannot 
consider  this  remark  as  decisive  of  the  question ;  for  we  may  feel  con- 
fident that  such  a  man  as  Paul,  especially  if  we  grant  his  independent 
labors  in  Cilicia,  must  have  come  forward,  even  before  the  period  of  his 
apostolic  superiority,  with  extraordinary  efficiency  when  the  occasion 
demanded  it. 

At  all  events,  if  we  admit  that  Paul  took  such  a  journey,  we  must 
consider  it  as  one  not  mentioned  by  him  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
and  as  the  second  of  the  journeys  which  he  made  to  Jerusalem  after  his 
conversion.  But  it  may  be  asked,  whether  this  journey  of  Paul's  is  on 
the  whole  sufficiently  accredited  ?  Its  not  being  mentioned  in  the  pass- 
age quoted  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  excites  strong  doubts.  It 
may,  indeed,  be  thought  possible  that  in  numbering  his  journeys  to  Jeru- 
salem up  to  a  certain  time,  this  journey  was  passed  over  as  not  very  im- 
portant, or  that  at  the  instant  of  writing  he  did  not  happen  to  think  of  it. 
Still  we  cannot  consider  this  as  at  all  probable.  Paul  certainly  so  ex 
presses  himself  that  we  cannot  attach  any  other  meaning  to  his  words 
than,  that  after  that  short  stay  of  fourteen  days  in  Jerusalem,  he  had  not 
been  there  till  that  journey  which  constituted  an  epoch  in  the  history 
of  the  Church ;  hence  he  could  say  that  he  had  continued  personally  un- 
known to  the  Churches  in  Judea — that  they  had  only  heard  by  report 
of  the  labors  of  him  who  had  once  been  a  persecutor.  And  what  con- 
clusion must  we  draw  from  this,  relative  to  the  account  in  the  Acts  ? 
Nothing  more  than  that  the  tradition  which  Luke  followed,  and  which 
united  Paid  and  Barnabas  in  their  labors  at  this  period,  joined  them 
here  together,  although  for  some  reason  this  was  an  exceptional  instance, 
or  Paul  might  have  been  chosen  as  a  delegate,  but  some  unknown  cir- 
cumstance might  have  prevented  his  taking  the  journey.  At  least,  we 
can  more  easily  admit  an  oversight  here,  than  resolve  to  do  violence  to 
Paul's  own  declaration.* 

Since  there  was  no  deficiency  of  teachers  in  the  church  at  Antioch, 
the  Christians  there  would  naturally  reflect,  after  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  had  once  begun,  that  the  publication  of  the  gospel  should  be 
extended  from  Syria  to  other  heathen  nations.  Barnabas  and  Paul  had 
probably  at  an  early  period  expressed  their  desire  to  be  employed  in  a 
wider  sphere  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  as  Paul  had  been  as- 
sured by  the  Lord  of  his  appointment  to  carry  the  gospel  to  distant 
nations.  And  as  Barnabas  had  brought  his  nephew  Mark  with  him  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  was  prompted  to  this 
step  by  the  prospect  of  a  more  extensive  field  in  which  he  might  employ 
his  relative  as  a  fellow-laborer.  The  teachers  who  were  assembled  at 
Antioch  appointed  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer,  to  lay  this  matter  before 

*  I  agree  here,  as  in  most  points,  with  Bleek ;  see  his  Beitrdge  zur  Evangelien-Kritik, 
Berlin,  1846,  p.  55 ;  a  work  that  contains  the  result  of  an  unprejudiced,  profound,  and 
cautious  criticism  •  from  this  writer,  indeed,  nothing  else  could  be  expected. 


BY   PAUL    AND    BARNABAS.  HI 

the  Lord,  and  to  pray  for  his  illumination  to  direct  them  what  to  do.  A 
firm  persuasion  was  imparted  to  them  all  by  the  Spirit  of  God-,  that  they 
ought  to  set  apart  and  send  forth  Barnabas  and  Paul  to  the  work  to 
which  they  were  called  by  the  Lord. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE    PROPAGATION    OF    CHRISTIANITY    FROM    ANTIOCH    BY    PAUL    AND 
BARNABAS. 

Accompanied  by  Mark,  they  first  visited  the  island  of  Cyprus,  the 
native  country  of  Barnabas,  whose  previous  connection  with  it  facilitated 
the  introduction  of  the  gospel.  They  traversed  the  island  from  east  to 
west,  from  Salamis  to  Paphos.  In  their  teaching  they  followed  the 
track  which  history  had  marked  out  for  them,  that  method  by  which 
the  gospel  must  spread  itself  among  the  heathen.  As  the  Jews,  in  vir- 
tue of  their  connexion  with  the  theocratic  development,  and  of  the  pro- 
mises intrusted  to  them,  had  the  first  claim  to  the  announcement  of  the 
Messiah  ;*  as  they  were  in  a  state  of  the  greatest  preparation,  and  places 

*  npurov  'lovdatw,  "to  the  Jew  first"  Rom.  i.  16,  compared  with  John  iv.  22.  The 
credibility  of  what  is  narrated  in  the  Acts  on  this  and  other  occasions  respecting  the 
manner  in  which  Paul  turned  to  the  Gentiles  immediately  after  the  ill  reception  which  he 
met  with  from  the  Jews  assembled  in  the  synagogue,  would  be  shaken  if  Dr.  Baur  were 
correct  in  his  assertion,  (see  his  Essay  on  the  Object  and  Occasion  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  in  the  Tubingen  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1836,  No.  iii.,  p.  101,)  that  the  author 
of  the  Acts  did  not  give  a  faithful  relation  of  objective  facts,  but  modified  them  according 
to  his  peculiar  views  and  aim  ;  that  they  are  to  be  explained  from  the  apologetic  design 
with  which  he  maintains  the  position,  that  the  gospel  reached  the  Gentiles  only  through 
the  criminality  and  unbelief  of  the  Jews.  This  is  connected  with  Baur's  idea  of  an  anti- 
Pauline  party,  consisting  of  persons  who  took  offence  at  the  Pauline  universalism,  (his 
preaching  the  gospel  both  to  Jews  and  Gentiles,)  and  which  had  its  seat  in  Rome.  .Jor 
this  party  such  an  apologetic  representation  of  Paul's  ministry  must  be  supposed.  We 
might  be  allowed  to  cast  such  a  suspicion  on  the  representation  in  the  Acts,  if  any  thing 
artificial  was  to  be  found  in  it,  any  thing  not  corresponding  to  what  might  be  expected 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  times.  But  if  the  line  of  conduct  ascribed  to  the  apostle, 
and  its  consequences,  appear  altogether  natural  under  the  circumstances,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear how  we  can  be  justified  in  deducing  the  repetition  (of  Paul's  mode  of  acting,)  not 
from  the  nature  of  the  thiug,  in  which  it  was  really  grounded,  but  from  the  subjective 
manner  of  the  narrator.  Now,  in  all  the  cities  where  synagogues  existed,  they  formed  the 
most  convenient  places  for  making  known  the  gospel,  when  Paul  was  not  disposed  to  ap- 
pear in  the  public  market-places  as  a  preacher.  Here  he  found  the  proselytes  assembled, 
who  formed  a  channel  of  communication  with  the  Gentiles,  and  in  the  passage  quoted 
from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  principle  is  stated  according  to  which  the  Jews  had 
the  first  claim  to  the  publication  of  the  gospel.  Love  to  his  own  people  produced  the 
earnest  desire  to  effect  as  much  as  possible  for  their  salvation  along  with  his  calling  as  aD 


112  SPREAD   OF    CHRISTIANITY 

already  existed  among  them  for  the  purposes  of  religious  instruction ;  it 
was  on  these  accounts  natural  that  the  apostles  should  first  enter  the 
synagogues,  and  the  proselytes  of  the  gate,  whom  they  had  met  with, 
afforded  them  the  most  convenient  point  of  transition  from  the  Jews  to 
the  Gentiles.  In  Paphos,  they  found  in  the  proconsul,  Sergius  Paulue,  a 
man  dissatisfied  with  all  that  philosophy  and  the  popular  religion  could 
offer  for  his  religious  wants,  and  anxious  to  receive  every  thing  which 
presented  itself  as  a  new  communication  from  heaven ;  hence,  he  was 
eager  to  hear  what  Paul  and  Barnabas  announced  as  a  new  divine  doc- 
trine. But,  also,  from  that  very  sense  of  religious  need,  unsatisfied,  and 
guided  by  no  clear  self-knowledge,  he  had  given  ear  to  the  deceptive  arts 
of  an  itinerant  Jewish  Goes,  Barjesus.*     These  Goetse  were  in  succeed- 


apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  Rom.  xi.  14.  That  I  have  brought  forward  this  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  which  Baur  has  made  use  of  as  a  proof  of  the  existence  of  such  an  apolo- 
getic interest,  is  not  on  my  part  a  mere  petitio  principii,  for  I  cannot  in  any  way  recon- 
cile it  with  the  character  of  the  apostle,  that  he  could  express  such  principles  and  such 
desires  at  that  time,  merely  for  certain  special  purposes.  But  it  was  natural  that  he 
should  turn  away  from  the  great  mass  of  the  carnally-minded  Jews,  if  he  found  only  here 
and  there  individuals  among  them  of  susceptible  dispositions,  and  devote  himself  to  the 
Gentiles  alone.  It  does  not  follow  from  this  that  his  call  to  the  apostleship  among  the 
heathen  was  determined  merely  by  accidental  circumstances ;  for  if  he  found  a  greater 
number  of  Jews  in  a  city  disposed  to  believe,  yet  his  other  calVng  would  not  thereby 
have  been  frustrated ;  but  among  the  converted  Hellenistic  Jews,  who  were  more  closely 
related  by  birth  or  education  to  those  who  were  Greeks,  he  would  have  found  assistance 
for  establishing  the  Christian  church  among  the  Gentiles ;  and  when,  after  so  many  pain- 
ful experiences,  he  had  little  hopes  of  success  among  the  Jews,  still  he  could  not  give  up 
the  attempt  to  do  something  for  his  countrymen,  if  by  any  means  he  might  save  some ; 
especially  since  he  could  so  well  unite  this  with  the  interests  of  his  calling,  and  could  find 
no  more  convenient  and  unostentatious  method  of  paving  his  way  to  the  Gentiles.  And 
does  not  the  peculiar  mixture  in  the  churches  of  the  Genrile  Christians,  the  influence  of 
Judaizers  upon  them,  give  evidence  of  their  origination?  Rom.  xi.  12  will  also  establish 
this  point.  And  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  has  given  a  narrative  consistent  with  facts 
and  the  actual  state  of  things,  is  shown  by  this,  that  when  describing  the  course  of  Paul 
at  Athens,  he  does  not  repeat  the  same  method  of  proceeding,  but  represents  him  as  act- 
ing in  a  different  manner,  adapted  to  the  local  peculiarities. 

*  On  this  account,  it  was  not  at  all  uncommon  for  such  sorcerers  to  find  access  to  men 
of  the  highest  rank.  Thus  Lucian  narrates,  that  the  most  distinguished  men  in  Rome 
most  eagerly  inquired  after  the  prophecies  of  a  sorcerer,  Alexander  of  Abonoteichos,  in 
Pontus,  who  acquired  great  notoriety  in  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius; 
among  the  zealous  adherents  of  Alexander,  he  mentions  especially  an  eminent  Roman 
statesman,  Rutilianus,  of  whom  he  says — dvijp  to.  [iiv  akla  naXos  nal  uyadbc  ical  h 
nolXalg  izpd$eoi  /5w/zai«aZ?  kfyrao/iivoc,  rd.  61  nepl  roOf  deoiig  ndvv  voauv  ;  Alexand. 
§  30 ;  (a,  man  in  other  things,  indeed,  good  and  noble,  and  esteemed  in  many  Roman 
offices,  but  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  gods  altogether  diseased).  Lucian.  Baur.  (p.  94) 
objects  to  the  use  I  here  make  of  this  work  of  Lucian's,  because  it  is  evident,  he  says, 
that  in  this  discourse  he  was  not  describing  an  historical  person,  but  only  intended  to 
paint  the  manners  of  the  times.  Certainly,  we  do  not  appeal  to  Lucian's  work  as  a  sure 
source  of  historical  information,  but  can  only  suppose  a  groundwork  of  especial  historical 
truth,  which  Lucian  fills  up  for  the  object  he  had  in  view.  But  this  decides  nothing 
against  my  use  of  it.     If  Lucian  gives  the  manners  of  his  times,  the  traits  must  be  box 


BT   PAUL    AND    BARNABAS.  113 

ing  times  the  most  virulent  opposers  of  Christianity,  because  it  threat- 
ened to  deprive  them  of  their  domination  over  the  minds  of  men  ;*  and 
for  the  same  reason,  this  man  took  the  utmost  pains  to  hinder  the  spread 
of  the  gospel,  and  to  prejudice  the  proconsul  against  it.  But  Paul,  full 
of  holy  indignation,  declared  with  divine  confidence,  that  the  Lord  would 
punish  him  with  the  loss  of  that  eye-sight  which  he  only  abused  by 
attempting  with  his  arts  of  deception  to  stop  the  progress  of  divine 
truth.  The  threatening  was  immediately  fulfilled  ;  and  by  this  sensible 
evidence  of  the  -operation  of  a  higher  power,  the  proconsul  was  with- 
drawn from  the  influence  of  the  Goes,  and  rendered  more  susceptible 
of  divine  instruction. 

Thence  they  directed  their  course  further  northward  ;  passed  over  to 
Pamphylia,  and  along  the  borders  of  Phrygia,  Isauria,  and  Pisidia,  and 
made  a  longer  stay  at  the  considerable  city  of  Antioch,f  (which,  as  a 
border-city,  was  at  different  periods  reckoned  as  belonging  to  different 
provinces,)  in  order  to  allow  time  for  making  known  the  gospel.  Paul's 
discourse^  in  the  synagogue  is  a  specimen  of  the  peculiar  wisdom  and 
skill  of  the  great  apostle  in  the  management  of  men's  feelings,  and 
of  his  peculiar  antithetical  mode  of  developing  Christian  truth.  He 
sought  first  to  win  the  attention  and  confidence  of  his  hearers,  by  re- 
minding them  how  God  had  chosen  their  fathers  to  be  his  people,  and 
then  gave  an  outline  of  God's  dealings  with  them,  to  the  times  of  David, 
the  individual  from  whose   posterity,  according  to    the  promises,  the 

rowed  from  the  life,  and  heuce  we  can  make  use  of  his  work  as  a  proof  that  the  narrative 
under  our  consideration  contains  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  times  to 
which  it  belongs. 

*  Of  which  the  Alexander  mentioned  in  the  preceding  note  is  an  example. 

f  To  distinguish  it  from  the  Asiatic  metropolis,  it  is  called  'Avrtoxeia  npbg  Jliaidia. 

\  Baur  maintains  that  this  discourse  bears  the  marks  of  arbitrary  composition ;  that 
the  greater  part  is  cast  in  the  same  mould  as  the  discourses  of  Peter,  already  reported  in 
the  Acts,  and  only  at  the  close,  a  Pauline  turn  of  expression  is  brought  in,  a  foreign  ele- 
ment, not  at  all  suited  to  the  whole.  We  very  readily  grant  that  we  have  no  exact  and 
complete  report  of  Paul's  discourse,  and  that  we  should  have  recognized  more  of  what  is 
peculiarly  Pauline,  if  the  discourse  had  come  down  to  us  in  its  original  form.  Yet  we 
cannot  assent  to  what  Baur  says  about  the  composition ;  but  we  think  that  there  may  be 
discerned  the  genuine  main  features  of  the  discourse  delivered  by  Paul.  We  find  here  a 
combination  of  the  peculiarly  Pauline  as  it  appears  in  the  doctrine  of  Justification,  with 
what,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case,  formed  the  common  type  in  all  apologetical  dis- 
courses of  the  apostles  when  addressing  Jews.  The  references  to  the  ancient  history  of 
the  Theocratic  people  and  to  the  Messianic  element  must,  of  course,  always  be  prominent. 
The  adducing  of  Christ's  resurrection  as  a  proof  of  the  divine  agency  belongs  also  to  the 
common  foundation  of  the  Christian  testimony,  and  is  brought  forward  not  less  in  the 
Epistles  of  Paul.  As  Paul  was  speaking  to  persons  who  for  the  first  time  were  invited  to 
the  Faith,  he  would  naturally  express  himself  otherwise  than  in  his  epistles  addressed  to 
believing  Christians.  In  such  a  discourse  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  necessarily  intro- 
duced as  a  practical,  divine  credential  for  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus ;  a  credential  also  for 
what  he  had  effected  by  his  sufferings  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  If  this  kind  of  com- 
position is  to  be  set  down  as  un-Pauline,  then  Romans  iv.  25,  must  be  also  un-Pauline.  Soo 
Schlsiermacher's  EMeitung  in  das  neue  Testament,  p.  375. 

& 


114  SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

Messiah  was  to  spiii  r.  After  the  introduction  he  cnme  to  the  main  ob- 
ject of  his  address,  to  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  and  to  what  he 
had  effected  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  Then  turning  to  the  Jews 
and  proselytes  present,  he  proceeded  to  say,  that  for  them  this  announce- 
ment of  salvation  was  designed,  since  those  to  whom  it  was  first  pro- 
posed, the  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  and  their  rulers,  had  been  unwilling  to 
receive  it;  they  had  not  acknowledged  the  Messiah,  nor  understood  the 
prophecies,  which  they  heard  read  every  Sabbath-day  in  their  syna- 
gogues.* Yet,  while  in  their  blindness  they  condemned  the  Messiah  to 
death,  they  could  not  retard  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecies,  but,  against 
their  design  and  will,  contributed  to  it ;  for  after  he  had  suffered  all 
things  which  according  to  the  predictions  of  the  prophets  he  was  to 
suffer,  he  rose  from  the  dead.  By  faith  in  him  they  could  obtain  for- 
giveness of  sins  and  justification,  which  they  could  never  have  obtained 
by  the  law.f  And  after  announcing  this  promise  to  them,  Paul  closed 
with  a  threatening  warning  to  unbelievers.  This  discourse,  uttered  with 
all  the  impressiveness  of  firm  faith,  and  yet  evincing  so  much  tenderness 
towards  the  Jews,  made  at  first  a  favorable  impression  upon  them,  and, 
in  the  name  of  the  whole  assembly,  they  requested  him  to  expound  his 
doctrine  more  fully  on  the  next  Sabbath.J     Such  was  the  impression 

*  Only  using  milder  expressions,  Paul  here  says  the  same  things  of  the  blindness  of 
the  Jews,  which  he  often  says  in  stronger  and  more  severe  language  in  his  Epistles,  ac- 
cusing them  of  obduracy. 

f  To  justify  my  views  of  this  passage,  I  must  make  a  few  remarks  as  to  the  right 
interpretation  of  Acts  xiii.  39.  I  cannot  understand  it  as  if  the  apostle  meant  to  say — 
Through  Christ  men  obtain  forgiveness  of  all  sins,  even  of  those  of  which  forgiveness  could 
not  be  obtained  through  the  law.  The  apostle  certainly  knew  only  one  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  one  justification;  and  he  used  the  term  "all  things",  irdvrov,  only  to  mark  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  removal  of  guilt,  as  the  idea  of  "righteousness",  diKaioavvrj,  pre-supposes  this; 
but  the  preceding  ituvtuv  occasioned  him  to  refer  the  relative  pronoun  by  a  kind  of  logical 
attraction  to  this  term  of  universality,  rather  than  to  the  whole  idea  of  being  justified, 
diniaudfivai,  which  he  had  especially  in  view.  What  Meyer  says  in  his  commentary  in 
defence  of  the  common  interpretation,  does  not  convince  me.  "Paul,"  he  remarks, 
"specifies  one  part  of  the  universal  'forgiveness  of  siris,'  ufeaic  afiapTidv,  as  particularly 
worthy  of  notice,  but  this  does  not  at  all  injure  the  unity  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
justification."  I  do  not  perceive  how  Paul,  from  his  point  of  view,  could  render  one 
epecial  part  more  prominent  than  another;  I  know  indeed  of  no  sin  from  which  a  man 
could  be  justified  by  the  law;  in  Paul's  mind,  there  could  be  here  no  difference  whatever. 
The  peculiarly  Pauline  style  of  carrying  out  the  contrast  between  faith  and  the  law  here 
appears  in  the  germ. 

t  If,  in  Acts  xiii.  42,  we  take  fieraSjv,  (between,  intervening,)  in  its  usual  acceptation, 
we  must  understand  the  passage  thus :  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  requested  to  explain 
the  Christian  doctrine  to  them  during  the  week  between  this  and  the  next  Sabbath, 
therefore  before  the  next  celebration  of  the  Sabbath.  Such  a  request  might  be  very 
suitable,  if  it  were  that  of  individuals  who  wished  to  hear  discourses  on  the  doctrine 
in  their  private  circles  during  the  week.  But  it  does  not  appear  so  proper  as  a  wish 
expressed  by  the  whole  congregation  at  the  synagogue.  We  should  then  also  most 
naturally  refer  it  to  the  Gentiles,  and  on  that  account  should  be  obliged  to  consider  the 
reading  ']  the  Gentiles,"  rd,  edvij,  in  the  42d  vers©  as  correct,  though  it  seems  to  be  a 


BY    PAUL    AND    BARNABAS.  115 

made  by  his  words  on  the  assembly  in  general.  Bui  there  were  many 
among  the  Jews  present,  and  especially  the  proselytes,  who  were  more 
deeply  affected  than  the  rest,  and  who  longed  after  the  redemption  an- 
nounced by  Paul.  They  could  not  wait  till  the  next  Sabbath,  but  hast- 
ened after  Paul,  who  had  left  the  synagogue  with  Barnabas ;  they 
informed  them  of  the  impressions  they  had  received,  and  earnestly 
requested  more  ample  instruction.  Paul  and  Barnabas  consequently 
availed  themselves  of  many  opportunities  to*  explain  the  divine  doctrine 
in  private  houses  during  the  course  of  the  week,  and  likewise  to  make  it 
known  among  the  Gentiles.  Hence,  by  the  next  Sabbath,  the  new  doctrne 
of  salvation  had  obtained  notoriety  through  the  whole  city,  and  a  multi- 
tude of  the  Gentile  inhabitants  flocked  to  the  synagogue  in  order  to  hear 
Paul's  discourse.  This  was  a  spectacle  sufficient  to  stir  up  the  wrath  of 
the  Jews,  who  were  filled  with  spiritual  pride  and  with  a  delusive  notion  of 
their  superiority  as  members  of  the  ancient  Theocracy,  and  hence  this 
discourse  of  Paul's  was  not  heard  with  the  same  favorable  disposition 
and  calmness  as  the  first.  He  was  interrupted  by  violent  contradictions 
and  reproaches.  He  then  declared  to  them,  that  since  they  were  not 
disposed  to  receive  the  salvation  announced  to  them,  and  excluded 
themselves  from  it  to  their  own  condemnation,  the  preachers  of  the  gos- 
pel had  discharged  their  obligations,  and  would  now  turn  to  the  Gentiles, 
who  had  shown  themselves  disposed  to  receive  their  instructions,  and 
that  the  gospel  was  designed  to  be  a  fountain  of  light  and  salvation  to 
nations  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  Thus  Paul  and  Barnabas 
left  the  synagogue  with  the  believing  Gentiles,  and  a  suitable  chamber 
in  the  dwelling  of  one  of  their  number,  probably,  was  the  first  place 
of  assembling  for  the  church  that  was  now  formed.  Christianity  spread 
itself  through  the  whole  circumjacent  district ;   but  the  Jews  contrived, 

gloss.  Also  the  word  "  Sabbath,"  au(3/3aTov,  in  the  Acts  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of  a 
week;  for  the  phrase  "  first  day  of  the  week"  fiia  oajijiaTuv,  cannot  be  brought  as  a  voucher 
for  this  meaning.  But  if  we  understand  to  /xeraiv  adf33aTov,  of  the  next  Sabbath,  all 
will  be  clear;  and  a  comparison  with  verse  44  favors  this  interpretation,  which-  is  also 
sanctioned  by  the  ancient  glosses  and  scholia  in  Griesbach  and  Matthai.  Prom  the  earlier 
Greek  writers  it  is  certainly  difficult  to  find  an  authority  for  this  meaning  of  fiera^v,  but 
not  from  the  later.  In  Plutarch's  Instituta  Laconica,  c.  42,  juera^v  occurs  twice  in  this 
sense,  and  especially  in  the  second  passage,  "the  Macedonian  kings  after  Philip  and  Alex- 
ander," rotf  /itTaijv  MaKedoviitolc  (iaalXevaiv,  for  it  cannot  be  otherwise  understood;  and 
so  likewise  in  Josephus,  Be  Bello  Jud.,  lib.  v.  c.  4,  §  2,  where,  after  speaking  of  David  and 
Solomon,  he  says,  tHiv  fieraljv  tovtuv  fSarji^euv,  which  can  only  mean,  "  the  kings  after 
these."— I  consider  the  words  "The  Jews  out  of  the  synagogue,"  ek  ri/g  owayuyw  .&« 
'lovdaiuv,  and  the  words,  "the  Gentiles,"  tu  idvT],  as  glosses,  founded  on  a  misunder- 
standing ;  but  I  cannot,  with  Kuinoel,  take  the  whole  of  the  verse,  so  strongly  accredited 
as  genuine,  to  be  only  a  gloss.  What  is  said  in  this  verse,  may  be  considered  as  marking 
the  vivid  representation  of  an  event  by  an  eye-witness.  As  Paul  and  Barnabas  wore 
going  away  before  the  whole  of  the  congregation  had  separated,  they  were  requested  by 
the  elders  of  the  synagogue  to  repeat  their  addresses  on  the  next  Sabbath.  But  after  the 
whole  congregation  had  separated,  many  individuals  ran  after  them  to  open  their  hearts  to 
them  more  unreservedly. 


116  SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

"by  means  of  the  female  proselytes  belonging  to  the  most  respectable  fam 
ilies  ui  the  city,*  and  their  influence  on  their  husbands,  to  raise  a  perse- 
cution against  Paul  and  Barnabas,  so  that  they  were  obliged  to  leave  the 
place.  They  proceeded  to  the  city  of  Jconium,  about  ten  miles  to  the 
east,  in  Lycaonia,f  where  they  had  access  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
But  by  the  influence  of  the  hostilely  disposed  among  the  former,  who 
also  here  had  gained  over  to  their  side  a  part  of  the  people  and  the  mag- 
istrates, they  were  driven  from  this  city  also.  They  now  betook  them- 
selves to  other  cities  in  the  same  province,  and  first  tarried  in  the  neigh- 
boring town  of  Lystra.  As  in  this  place  there  was  no  synagogue,  and 
scarcely  any  Jews  dwelt  in  it,  they  could  make  known  the  gospel  only  by 
entering  into  conversation!  in  places  of  public  resort,  and  thus  leading  per- 
sons to  religious  subjects  ;  gradually  small  groups  were  formed,  which 
were  increased  by  many  who  were  attracted  by  curiosity  or  interest  in 
the  subject  of  conversation.  Paul  was  one  day  thus  instructing  in  divine 
truth  a  company  who  had  gathered  round  him,  when  a  man  who  had 
been  lame  from  his  birth,  and  probably  was  used  to  sit  for  alms  in  a 
thoroughfare  of  the  city,  listened  to  him  with  great  attention.  The 
divine  in  the  appearance  and  discourse  of  Paul-  deeply  impressed  him, 
and  caused  him  to  look  up  with  confidence  as  if  he  expected  a  cure  from 
him.  When  Paul  noticed  this,  he  said  to  him  with  a  loud  voice,  "  Stand 
upright  on  thy  feet ;"  and  he  stood  up  and  walked.§ 

*  Here,  as  at  Damascus,  (and  other  instances  might  be  mentioned,)  Judaism  found  most 
ready  acceptance  with  females,  as  Christianity  did  afterwards. 

f  In  other  times  it  was  considered  as  belonging  to  Phrygia,  or  Pisidia. 

|  A  frequent  practice  of  modern  missionaries  in  Asia. 

§  Only  he  will  feel  compelled  to  believe  this  statement  who  acknowledges  the  new  divine 
powers  of  life,  which  through  Christ  have  been  introduced  into  the  human  race.  But  whoever 
is  not  entangled  in  a  mechanical  view  of  nature,  whoever  acknowledges  the  power  of  Spirit 
over  nature,  and  a  hidden  dynamic  connexion  between  soul  and  body — to  such  a  person 
it  cannot  appear  wholly  incredible  that  the  immediate  impression  of  a  divine  power  oper- 
ating on  the  whole  internal  being  of  man,  should  produce  results  of  altogether  a  different 
kind  from  remedies  taken  out  of  the  stores  of  the  ordinary  powers  of  nature.  "What  Baur 
says  (p.  95)  in  his  note  on  these  words,  induces  me  to  add  a  few  words  to  justify  my  re- 
marks. He  finds  fault  with  the  first  words  as  giving  "  a  very  unworthy  view  of  Christian- 
ity— since  it  must  follow  that  miracles  belong  so  essentially  to  Christianity  that  wherever 
it  is  not  accompanied  by  such  acts,  it  does  not  manifest  its  divine  life-power.  And  since, 
confessedly,  no  such  wonders  take  place  now,  Christianity  must  have  been  long  devoid  of 
vitality."  But  this  can  have  been  written  only  in  consequence  of  a  palpable  distortion  of 
my  language,  even  if  not  intentional ;  for  such  a  distortion  might  easily  take  place  without 
design,  by  interpreting  what  I  have  said,  from  a  foreign  point  of  view.  Of  divine  powers  in 
Christianity  persons  speak  in  one  sense  from  the  stand-point  of  supernaturalism,  and  in 
another,  from  that  of  rationalism,  whether  it  be  a  deistical  or  a  pantheistical  rationalism— 
a  rationalism  which  with  reckless  consistency  goes  so  far  as  to  deny  everything  supersen- 
sual  and  beyond  the  present  life,  or  which  inconsistently  leaves  something  supersensual 
and  of  a  future  life  remaining.  If  by  the  divine  powers  of  Christianity  we  understand 
something  specific  and  peculiar,  not  proceeding  from  the  regular  development  of  human 
nature,  something  new,  in  a  true  sense  supernatural,  which  is  introduced  through  the 
supernatural  event  of  the  appearance  of  Christ  and  his  whole  work— then  from  such  a 


BY   PAUL    AND   BARNABAS.  117 

This  sight  attracted  a  still  greater  crowd,  and  the  credulous  people  now- 
esteemed  the  two  apostles  to  be  more  than  men, — gods  who  had  come 
down  in  human  form  to  confer  benefits  on  men.  A  belief  of  this  kind, 
deeply  seated  in  the  human  breast,  and  proceeding  from  the  undeniable 
feeling  of  the  connexion  of  the  human  race  with  God,  was  spread  from 
ancient  times  among  the  heathen,*  and  at  this  period  was  much  increased 


point  of  view,  what  we  call  miracle  will  appear  as  the  sign  corresponding  to  this  super- 
natural principle  on.  its  introduction  into  the  natural  development  of  mankind ;  an  operation 
related  to  this  causality.  And  it  can  with  perfect  justice  be  said,  that  whoever  en- 
tertains this  view,  whoever  acknowledges  the  Scriptural  Christ  in  his  true  supernatural- 
ness,  has  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case  itself  for  not  acknowledging  a  miracle  con- 
nected with  the  first  development  of  Christianity.  And  therewith  is  it  by  no  means 
affirmed  that  this  supernatural  divine  power  having  once  entered  into  the  life  of  human- 
ity, must  always  be  accompanied  by  such  miracles.  Rather,  wo  consider  it  as  belonging 
to  the  law  of  the  development  of  this  divine  power  in  the  human  race,  that  after  it  has 
once  adapted  itself  to  the  natural  development  of  humanity,  these  outward  marks  of  the 
supernatural  will  cease.  But  what  Christianity  has  effected  and  continues  to  effect  for 
the  spiritual  and  moral  transformation  of  the  world  we  recognise  as  proceeding  from  the 
same  divine  power  which  inheres  in  Christianity  and  is  identical  with  that  miraculous  ele- 
ment. But  the  case  is  altogether  different,  when  by  "the  divine  power  of  Christianity" 
nothing  more  is  understood  than  an  excitement  of  the  powers  already  lying  in  human  na- 
ture through  an  impulse  given  by  Christ,  in  no  other  sense  than  that  in  which  we  speak 
of  the  excitement  of  higher  powers  in  humanity  by  the  movement  called  forth  by  any  em- 
inent man  through  his  influence  on  society,  or  than  that  in  which  we  speak  of  a  divine 
power  in  all  the  manifestations  of  Truth  and  Goodness. 

But  as  to  the  second  part  of  this  note,  it  stands  in  no  contradiction  to  the  idea  of  a 
miracle  as  represented  by  me.  It  would  only  affect  such  an  idea  of  a  miracle  as  Dr.  Baur 
has  erroneously  attributed  to  me  and  to  the  advocates  of  the  supernaturalistic  point  of  view, 
an  idea  which  from  his  stand-point  of  Naturalism  or  Pantheism  logically  carried  out,  he 
regards  as  the  only  consistent  one ;  but  against  which  I  have  often  sufficiently  guarded 
myself  both  in  this  work  and  in  the  Life  of  Jesus.  It  is  by  no  means  asserted  in  these 
words,  as  Baur's  interpretation  of  them  would  imply,  that  the  miracle  could  be  denied  only 
from  the  stand-point  of  a  mechanical  view  of  nature,  which  certainly  would  be  an  un- 
founded and  unjust  assertion.  There  is  only  a  certain  denial  of  miracles,  (which  is  not  to 
be  said  of  every  denial,)  as  there  is  also  a  certain  mode  of  asserting  miracles,  which  pro- 
ceeds from  a  mechanical  view  of  nature.  Nor  were  these  words  at  all  designed  to  com- 
mend this  special  miracle  to  those  whose  views  are  merely  not  mechanical,  to  show 
the  possibility  of  it  from  such  a  point  of  view,  but  only  to  indicate  that  from  the  stand 
point  of  a  deeper,  more  living  conception  of  nature,  one  has  no  cause  to  set  himself  be- 
forehand against  many  immediate  operations  which  are  analogous  to  what  we  term  mir- 
acles ;  that  from  this  point  of  view  it  is  not  so  easily  permitted  to  pass  sentence  on  un- 
common occurrences,  as  if  they  were  absolute  impossibilities.  I  have  written  this  by  way 
of  explanation  for  the  advocates  of  another 'stand-point,  as  far  as  freedom  from  prejudice, 
the  love  of  truth,  and  rectitude  can  receive  such  an  explanation.  Whoever  knows  how 
to  estimate  scientific  character,  even  with  opposite  convictions,  will  not  be  disposed,  with 
Dr.  Baur,  to  descriue  me  as  one  who  only  uses  the  weapons  of  a  vulgar  controversialist. 

*  Homer  says:  "Gods  likening  themselves  to  strangers  from  foreign  lands,  being  in 
all  forms,  haunt  cities,"  deol  ^eivoiatv  loutoreg  dModaKoioc,  Uavroioi  teMOovtcc,  irnc- 
rpaxpuai  noh'/ac.  Od.  p.  485.  Although  I  am  very  far  from  confounding  this  (the  Apostolic,) 
age  with  the  Homeric,  I  can  by  no  means  acknowledge  the  correctness  of  Dr.  Baur's 
assertion,  that  at  this  time,  among  the  uninstructed  people,  there  might  have  been  a 


118  SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

by  the  existing  religious  ferment.*  Now  in  this  city  Zeus  was  worshipped 
as  the  founder  of  cities,  as  the  originator,  guide,  and  protector  of  civiliza- 
tion,! as  the  founder  and  protector  of  this  city  in  particular  (Zevc  -n-o/UetJc, 
7ro/Uov%oc),  and  a  temple  at  the  entrance  of  the  city  was  dedicated  to 
him.J  Accordingly  the  people  imagined  that  their  tutelar  deity,  Zeus 
himself,  had  come  down  to  them  ;  and  as  Paul  was  foremost  in  speaking, 
and  possessed — as  we  may  conclude  from  his  Epistles,  and  his  speech  at 
Athens — a  peculiarly  powerful  address,  and  a  high  degree  of  popular 
eloquence,  he  was  taken  for  Hermes,  while  Barnabas  his  senior,  who 
perhaps  had  something  imposing  in  his  appearance,  was  believed  to  be 
Zeus.  The  people  made  their  remarks  to  one  another  on  these  strangers 
in  the  old  Lycaonian  dialect,  so  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  not  aware 
of  their  drift,  and  were  therefore  quite  unprepared  for  the  result.  The 
news  of  the  appearance  of  these  supposed  divinities  quickly  reached  the 
temple,  and  a  priest  came  with  oxen,  which  were  generally  sacrificed  to 
Zeus,  and  with  garlands  to  adorn  them,  to  the  gates  of  the  city  ;§  it  may 
be  he  wished  to  sacrifice  to  Zeus  before  the  gate  for  the  welfare  of  the 
city  ;  or  intended  to  bring  the  animals  to  Paul's  residence,  and  there  to 
perform  the  sacrifice  ;  but  before  he  had  entered  the  gates,  Paul  and 
Barnabas  hastened  thither,  full  of  consternation,  having  discovered 
the  object  of  these  preparations.  They  Tent  their  garments — a  cus- 
tomary sign  among  the  Jews  of  abhorrence  for  whatever  outraged 
the  religious  feelings — and  rushed  among  the  crowd.  Paul  exclaimed, 
"  What  do  ye  !     We  are  men  like  yourselves  ;  we  are  come  hither  for 

belief  in  demoniacal  and  goetic  operations,  but  not  in  new  appearances  of  the  gods, 
and  that  therefore  this  account  of  the  Lycaonians  must  be  unhistorical. 

*  "When  Baur  says  against  these  words,  that  the  religious  ferment  rather  excited 
doubt  and  unbelief,  we  must  reply,  that  in  times  of  such  ferment,  heterogeneous  ele- 
ments are  wont  to  come  together,  fanaticism,  superstition,  and  unbelief,  which  Baur  him- 
self, as  is  evident  from  his  own  expressions,  must  acknowledge ;  but  then  no  ground  is 
left  for  disputing  what  T  said. 

f  As  Aristides  in  his  discourse  elc  Aia  says,  that  as  Zeus  is  the  Creator  and  Giver  of 
all  good  things,  be  is  to  be  worshipped  under  manifold  titles  according  to  these  various 
relations.  "  All  names  whatsover  he  found  great  and  fit  for  himself."  Huvff  baa  avrbg 
etipe  fih/ala  ku.1  kavrC)  rrpenovra  ovo/xara. 

%  Libanius  vnip  tuv  lepuv,  ed.  Reishe,  vol.  ii.  p.  158,  remarks  that  cities  were  built  in 
the  immediate  vicinity  of  temples,  hence  frequently  the  buildings  nearest  the  walls  were 
ancient  temples;  as  in  the  middle  ages,  the  site  of  towns  was  often  determined  by  that 
of  the  churches  and  religious  houses;  and  as  in  our  own  times,  in  the  South  Sea 
Islands,  settlements  are  formed  near  the  residence  of  the  missionaries,  which  gradually 
become  villages  and  towns. 

§  The  word  "gates,"  nvXuver,  Acts  xiv.  13,  as  no  other  term  is  added,  may  be  most 
naturally  understood  of  the  city  gates,  not  of  the  door  of  the  house  in  which  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  staying ;  in  the  latter  case,  the  plural  would  hardly  have  been  used.  The 
"ran  out,"  Hfenr/drjoav,  in  verse  14  can  prove  nothing;  for  it  might  easily  be  omitted  to 
state  whether  they  heard  of  what  had  happened  while  in  their  lodging,  and  now  hastened 
to  the  gates,  or  were  at  that  time  near  the  gates.  Perhaps  Luke  himself  had  10  exact 
information  on  these  points. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  GENTILE  CHURCH.  119 

this  very  purpose,  that  you  may  turn  from  these  who  are  no  gods,  to  the 
living  God,  the  Almighty  Creator  of  the  universe,  who  hitherto  has 
allowed  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  try  by  their  own  experience  to  what 
they  can  attain  in  the  knowledge  of  religion  by  the  powers  of  their  own 
reason,  but  who  yet  has  not  left  himself  without  witnesses  among  them, 
by  granting  them  all  good  things  from  heaven,  and  supplying  them  with 
those  gifts  of  nature  which  contribute  to  the  preservation  of  life  and  to 
their  general  well-being."* 

Even  by  such_an  appeal  it  was  difficult  to  turn  the  people  from  their 
purpose.  Yet  this  impression  on  the  senses,  so  powerful  for  a  short  time, 
eoon  passed  away  from  men  who  were  not  affected  internally  by  the 
power  of  truth.  The  Jews  from  Iconium  succeeded  in  instigating  the 
greater  part  of  the  people  against  Paul.  And  this  transition  from  one 
extreme  to  the  other,  from  a  reverence  which  beheld  beings  of  a  higher 
order  in  the  apostles,  to  fury  against  them  as  enemies  of  the  gods,  can- 
not, certainly,  in  such  a  popular  gathering,  driven  by  sudden  excitement 
from  one  impression  to  its  opposite,  be  regarded  as  surprising.  He  was 
stoned  in  a  popular  tumult,  and  dragged  out  of  the  city  for  dead.  But 
while  the  believers  from  the  city  were  standing  round  him  and  using 
means  for  his  restoration,  he  arose,  strengthened  by  the  power  of  God  ; 
and  after  spending  only  the  remainder  of  that  day  at  Lystra,  he  departed 
with  Barnabas  to  the  neighboring  town  of  Derbe.  When  they  had  pro- 
claimed the  gospel  there  and  in  the  neighborhood,!  they  again  visited 
those  towns  in  which  they  had  propagated  the  faith  on  this  journey,  and 
which  through  persecutions  they  had  been  obliged  to  leave  sooner  than 
they  wished  ;  they  endeavored  to  establish  the  faith  of  the  new  converts, 
and  regularly  organized  the  churches.  They  then  returned  by  their 
former  route  to  Antioch. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

CONTROVERSY     BETWEEN    THE     JEWISH     AND     GENTILE     CHRISTIANS     AND 

ITS  SETTLEMENT. THE  INDEPENDENT  DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE    GENTII,F 

CHURCH. 

While  in  this  manner  Christianity  spread  itself  from  Antioch,  from 
the  parent-church  of  the  Gentile  world,  and  that  great  revolution  began, 

*  The  sense  of  benefits  received  should  have  been  the  means  of  leading  men  to  the 
Giver.  From  a  perversion  of  this  sense  arose  systems  of  natural  religion,  to  which  the 
immediate  revelation  of  God,  appealing  to  that  original  but  misunderstood  and  misdirected, 
sense,  was  directly  opposed. 

f  The  " round  about,"  nepixupoc,  v.  6,  evidently  means  only  the  paces  lying  in  th 


120  SPREAD    OF    CHRISTIANITY 

which  has  continued  ever  since  to  work  its  way  among  the  nations, 
a  division  threatened  to  break  out  between  the  two  parent-churches,  those 
two,  central  points  from  which  the  kingdom  of  God  began  to  extend 
itself.  It  was  a  great  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  mankind. 
Hidden  antagonistic  principles  at  first  necessarily  came  forth  to  be  over- 
come and  reconciled  with  one  another  by  the  power  of  Christianity. 
The  question  was,  whether  Christianity,  not  only  then,  but  through  all 
future  ages,  could  thus  control  them. 

There  came  to  Antioch  many  strictly  pharisaical-minded  Christians 
from  Jerusalem,  who,  like  the  Eleazar  we  have  already  mentioned,  as- 
sured the  Gentiles  that  they  could  not  obtain  any  share  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  its  blessedness  without  circumcision,  and  entered  into  a  con- 
troversy with  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  the  views  they  held  on  this  subject. 
The  church  at  Antioch  resolved  to  send  a  deputation  to  Jerusalem  for 
the  settlement  of  this  dispute,  and  their  choice  naturally  fell  on  Paul  and 
Barnabas,  as  the  persons  who  had  been  most  active  in  the  propagation 
of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  Paul  had,  besides,  a  special  reason 
which  would  have  determined  him  to  undertake  the  journey  without  any 
public  commission.  It  appeared  now  high  time  for  him  to  explain  him- 
self to  the  apostles  respecting  the  manner  in  which  he  published  the 
gospel  among  the  heathen,  that  he  might  bring  into  distinct  recognition 
their  unity  of  spirit  amidst  their  diversity  of  method  (made  necessary 
by  the  diversity  of  their  spheres  of  action)  and  to  obviate  all  those 
antagonisms  by  which  the  consciousness  of  that  essential  unity  could  be 
disturbed.  He  felt  assured  by  divine  illumination,  that  an  explanation  on 
this  subject  was  essential  for  the  well-being  of  the  church.  The  pro- 
posal to  send  such  a  deputation  to  Jerusalem  might  very  likely  have 
originated  with  himself.  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem  in  the  year  50,*  tc 
render  an  account  (as  he  himself  tells  us  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians), 
partly  in  private  interview  with  the  most  eminent  of  the  apostles, f  partly 
in  public  before  the  assembled  church,  of  his  conduct  in  publishing  the 
gospel,  that  no  one  might  suppose  that  all  his  labor  had  been  in  vain,  but 
might  learn  that  he  preached  the  same  gospel  as  themselves,  and  that  it 
had  been  effective  with  divine  power  among  the  Gentiles.     He  took 

immediate  vicinity  of  these  two  towns,  certainly  not  a  whole  province,  and  least  of  all, 
from  its  geographical  position,  the  province  of  Galatia.  Hence  the  supposition  that  Paul 
in  his  first  missionary  journey  preached  the  gospel  to  the  Galatians  may  be  safely  rejected. 

*  On  the  supposition  that  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  reckons  the  fourteen 
years  from  his  conversion,  and  that  this  took  place  in  the  year  36.  Thus  about  six  years 
would  have  passed  since  his  return  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch. 

f  "We  have  already  remarked,  that  though  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  par- 
ticularly mentions  his  private  conferences  with  the  most  eminent  apostles,  yet  in  doing  so, 
he  by  no  means  excludes  other  public  discussions.  Indeed,  it  is  self-evident,  that  Paul, 
before  this  subject  was  discussed  in  so  large  an  assembly,  had  agreed  with  the  apostles  on 
the  principles  that  were  to  be  adopted.  Nor  would  he  iu  an  assembly  composed  of  such 
a  variety  of  characters,  bring  forward  everything  which  might  have  passed  in  more  private 
communications.     See  p.  109. 


APOSTOLICAL   COUNCIL.  121 

w;ih  K',->  a  converted  youth  of  Gentile  descent,  Titus,  (who  afterwards 
becarao  v.s  chief  associate  in  preaching,)  in  order  to  exhibit  in  his  person 
a  living  example  of  the  power  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen. 

It  was  a  principal  object  with  Paul  to  explain  to  the  apostles  the 
manner  in  which  he  had  been  accustomed  to  publish  the  gospel  among 
the  Gentiles,  and  to  obtain  from  them  an  acknowledgment  of  his  apos- 
tolic ministry  as  not  a  vain  one.  This  must  certainly  have  been  to  him 
a  point  of  the  first  importance.  If  the  apostles  and  James,  the  brother 
of  the  Lord,  (who  stood  next  to  them,  and  had  the  greatest  influence  in 
the  Jewish  Church,)  should  agree  in  opinion  with  him,  their  influence 
would  have  a  great  effect,  and  there  would  be  no  danger  of  a  division  in 
the  church.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  placed  themselves  in  opposition 
to  him,  all  conferences  with  any  other  parties  would  be  useless.  But 
with  this  object  in  view,  Paul  may  also  have  acted  as  a  delegate  from 
one  church  to  the  other. 

If,  setting  out  from  the  account  in  the  Acts,  we  find  that  public  con- 
ferences were  held,  yet  we  must  presume  that  these  were  not  the  first, 
but  that  Paul  first  of  all  explained  himself  in  private  to  the  apostles, 
before  whom  he  could  express  himself  without  reserve  on  every  topic, 
prior  to  his  bringing  forward  the  subject  in  an  assembly  consisting  of 
such  heterogeneous  materials.  We  must  necessarily  presuppose  that 
he  assured  himself  of  perfect  agreement  with  the  apostles  before  he 
would  venture  to  risk  the  issue  of  such  a  public  council.  But  if  we  set 
out  with  that  private  conference  between  Paul  and  the  apostles,  we  are 
certainly  justified  in  concluding  that  this  could  not  be  considered  as 
sufficient,  but  that  it  would  be  attempted  to  bring  the  church  in 
which  so  much  that  was  Jewish  predominated,  to  an  acknowledgment 
of  the  points  agreed  upon  by  Paul  and  the  apostles ;  and  this  could 
be  done  only  by  public  conferences.  Thus  we  must  maintain  that  the 
account  in  the  Acts  and  that  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  do  not 
contradict  each  other ;  indeed,  so  far  from  that  being  the  case,  if  we 
had  only  one  representation  we  should  be  led  by  the  pragmatic  his- 
toric connexion,*  to  fill  it  up  with  the  substance  of  the  other.  Paul, 
therefore,  first  of  all,  applied  himself  to  the  apostles  Peter  and  John 
and  to  James  the   brother  of  the  Lord.      To  them  he  explained  in 

*  I  cannot  comprehend  how  Baur  (p.  116)  can  find  fault  with  such  an  adjustment 
(which  appears  to  me  absolutely  necessary,)  as  uncritical  and  arbitrary.  That  Paul  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  says  nothing  of  a  public  discussion,  is  not  surprising;  for  he 
Drings  forward  what  for  him  was  the  most  important  point,  in  combating  with  his  oppo- 
nents, who  wished  to  make  the  authority  of  the  Palestinian  apostles  and  of  James  abso- 
lute. But  those  public  discussions  and  their  result  he  could  take  for  granted,  as  well 
known.  They  were  not  of  so  much  consequeuce  to  him,  as  the  acknowledgment  of 
his  independent  call  from  heaven  to  publish  the  Gospel.  The  phrase  "  but  privately  to 
them  which  were  of  reputation,"  nar'  l&iav  6k  role  Sokovoi,  is  certainly  nothing  more  than 
a  designation  for  what  had  before  been  left  indefinite,  and  it  must  be  granted  Dr.  Baur 
that  nothing  more  can  be  drawn  from  it  with  certainty ;  but  it  is  very  possible  that  there 
was  a  reference  in  the  apostle's  mind  to  what  had  taken  place  "  in  public,"  6r//iooiq. 


122  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  GENTILE  CHUECH. 

what  manner  he  had  been  accustomed  to  publish  the  gospel  among 
the  heathen,  and  described  to  them  the  success  of  his  ministry — what 
God  had  effected  by  him  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  how  God 
himself  had  thus  accredited  his  method  as  the  right  one.  And  the  apos- 
tles, prepared  by  what  had  already  taken  place,*  acknowledged  that 
God,  who  had  called  Peter  to  publish  the  gospel  among  the  Jews,f  had 
also  bestowed  on  Paul  the  power  to  labor  for  the  gospel  among  the 
Gentiles.  They  agreed  with  him  that  he  and  they  should  each  continue 
to  labor  in  their  respective  spheres,  only  the  new  churches  among  the 
Gentiles  should  give  a  pledge  of  their  common  faith,  and  of  their  grati- 
tude to  the  primitive  Church  at  Jerusalem,  from  whom  they  had  re- 
ceived the  gospel,  by  contributing  towards  the  temporal  necessities  of 
its  poor.  What  now  had  been  expressed  on  both  sides  ?  That  the 
Gentiles  should  not  be  subject  to  the  pressure  of  Judaism,  but  with  them 
everything  should  depend  on  faith  in  the  Redeemer ;  that  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Jewish  Christians  should  not  be  compelled  to  renounce  at  once 
the  ecclesiastical  constitution  corresponding  to  their  national,  theocratic 
point  of  view  and  founded  in  their  historical  development.  How  easily 
might  Paul's  ardent  spirit,  in  his  zeal  for  the  fundamental  truths  of  the 
gospel, which  to  him  were  most  important,  have  been  hurried  along  to  re- 
quire from  the  believing  Jews,  that  they  should  place  themselves  on  a  level 
with  the  Gentiles  in  the  renunciation  of  everything  Jewish.  If  they  really 
acknowledged  that  nothing  more  was  required  for  the  justification  of 
man  than  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  without  the  works  of  the  law,  it  would 
appear  a  necessary  consequence,  that  they  should  give  a  practical  proof 
of  their  assent  by  throwing  off  the  yoke  of  the  law.  Their  adherence 
to  the  observance  of  the  law  appeared  at  variance  with  this  belief;  it 
was  a  practical  confirmation  of  the  opposite  conviction.  Paul  might 
easily  have  taken  this  view  of  the  subject.  And  on  the  other  hand,  how 
easily  could  the  Palestinian  apostles,  who  had  been  accustomed  to  con- 
nect the  newr  spirit  of  the  gospel  with  the  old  Jewish  form  of  life,  have 
been  led  to  consider  as  inseparable  what  had  been  mingled  in  their 
own  conceptions  and  practice,  especially  since  Christ  himself  had  in  all 
things  observed  the  law.  What  an  impression  might  the  sight  of  a 
heathen,  living  altogether  in  a  Gentile  manner,  make  on  a  James  who 
probably  had  never  left  Jerusalem,  and  had  lived  from  his  youth  up  in 

*  "We  believe  that  it  has  been  sufficiently  indicated  above,  that  the  preceding  develop- 
ments, as  recorded  in  the  Acts,  which  were  connected  with  the  conversion  of  Cornelius, 
offer  no  contradiction  to  what  now  took  place. 

f  Peter,  as  the  person  who  from  the  first  had  been  most  active  for  the  spread 
of  the  gospel,  here  makes  the  principal  figure;  James's  vocation  was  confined  to 
the  internal  guidance  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem.  That  Peter  was  preeminently  the 
apostle  of  the  circumcision  is  quite  consistent  with  his  having  been  once  and  again  called 
to  extend  his  ministry  to  the  Gentiles;  and  equally  so  was  it  consistent  with  Paul'?  Heing 
the  apostle  of  the  uncircumcision,  that  he  rejoiced  in  the  opportunities  he  had  of  oc "  ert- 
ing  individuals  among  the  Jews.     Rom.  xi.  14. 


APOSTOLIC   COUNCIL.  123 

the  strict  observance  of  the  law  !  And  was  such  an  one  to  be  acknow- 
ledged as  a  member  of  the  same  religious  community,  as  an  equally  privi- 
leged brother  in  the  faith  ?  In  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  on  this  oc- 
casion, we  are  struck  with  the  combination  of  genuine  liberality  of  mind 
and  wisdom  ;  how  each  side  retained  their  own  point  of  view,  indicated  by 
history,  and  yet  both  renounced  it,  and  raised  themselves  to  the  fellow- 
ship of  a  higher  unity,  founded  on  the  essence  of  the  gospel,  by  which 
all  their  limited  individualism  was  abandoned.*  In  the  conviction  that 
faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  the  only  necessary  and  all-sufficient 
means  of  justification  and  sanctification,  the  Palestinian  apostle  must 
have  agreed  with  Paul.  Otherwise  they  would  not  have  granted  that 
this  without  the  Mosaic  law,  was  sufficient  to  make  the  Gentiles  fellow- 
members  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  same  must  also  hold  good  in  its 
application  to  the  Jews,  or  it  must  be  admitted  that  in  their  opinion  the 
Jews  who  observed  the  Mosaic  law  would  have  some  preeminence  in 
the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  But  of  such  an  opinion  we  find  no  trace. 
On  both  sides  there  was  an  acknowledgment  of  equal  Messianic  rights  to 
believing  Jews  and  Gentiles.  There  remains,  therefore,  only  one  of  two 
things ;  either  they  followed  in  their  practice  such  principles  as  they  had 
developed  into  clear  consciousness,  or  they  followed  the  pressure  of  his- 
tory, guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  being  clearly  conscious  of  the 
principles  which  lay  at  the  ground  of  their  conduct. 

In  the  first  case  they  followed  the  principles  which  Paul  expressed  when 
he  said,  "that  to  the  Jews  he  became  a  Jew,"  (1  Cor.  ix.  20,)  in  order  to 
gain  the  Jews  to  the  gospel ;  or,  "Let  every  man,  wherein  he  is  called, 
therein  abide  with  God."  (1  Cor.  vii.  24.)  Two  principles  form  the  basis 
of  these  words  ;  first,  that  a  man  without  giving  up  anything  of  his  inward 
freedom  must  accommodate  himself  outwardly  to  the  position  of  the  Jews, 
in  order  to  gain  them  the  more  easily  to  the  faith  ;  and  secondly,  that  no 
one  should  withdraw  arbitrarily  from  the  stand-point  on  which  he  has  been 
placed  by  historical  development.  Whoever  might  embrace  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  being  a  member  of  the  Jewish  people,  need  make  no  external 
alteration,  but  might  expect  that  through  the  power  of  the  new  Christian 
spirit  everything  would  be  transformed  by  an  internal  change,  or,  that  by 
the  great  developments  in  the  world's  history,  such  as  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem — a  judgment  on  the  corrupt  Theocracy — the  dissolution  of 
outward  Judaism  would  be  brought  about. 

But  in  the  second  case,  it  might  be  supposed  that  many  who  felt  them- 
selves compelled  to  acknowledge  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  among 
the  Gentiles,  as  agreeing  with  the  principle  of  the  justifying  power  of 
faith  alone — still,  without  giving  themselves  a  clear  account  of  the  reason, 
could  not  themselves  resolve  to  give  up  the  outward  Judaism,  from 
which  the  whole  of  their  religious  development  had  proceeded ;  for  in 
religion,  to  put  away  the  outward,  which  has  grown  up  intertwined  with 
so  many  devotional  feelings,  is  always  a  most  difficult  task;  and  this  was 
more  especially  the  case  in  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  Judaism,  since 


124  DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE   GENTILE   CHURCH. 

in  Judaism  there  were  so  many  things  which  might  be  spiritualised  in 
Christianity.  Thus  a  James  might  find  it  very  difficult  to  resolve  to  re- 
nounce altogether  the  outward  observances  of  Judaism.  It  was  other- 
wise, as  appears  from  what  we  have  already  said,  with  the  apostle  Peter. 
At  all  events,  we  can  find  in  this  proceeding  of  the  elder  apostles  noth- 
ing of  vacillation  or  inconsistency,  nor  ought  we  to  require  that,  when 
they  acknowledged  that  the  gospel  without  the  law,  was  designed  for 
Gentiles  as  well  as  for  Jews,  they  should, in  accordance  with  this  princi- 
ple, feel  compelled  to  take  a  part  in  preaching  the  gospel  among  the 
Gentiles.  They,  evidently,  did  not  so  feel.  And  consistently  with 
this,  they  considered  that  alone  as  their  call  from  God,  indicated  by  his- 
torical development,  to  form  a  point  of  transition  to  the  gospel  for  the 
Jeics  ;  just  as  Paul  regarded  it  as  his  vocation,  indicated  by  his  peculiar 
religious  development,  to  be  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  There  did  not 
lie  in  these  principles  any  ambiguity  and  inconsistency,  which  would,  of 
themselves,  have  worked  evil  results,  and  brought  on  those  later  dissen- 
sions between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians.  It  was  the  fault  of 
men  that  the  views  of  the  guiding  wisdom  of  the  apostles  could  not  be 
accomplished,  since  so  few  knew  how  to  enter  into  these  principles  and 
the  spirit  which  had  suggested  them.  Well-intended  plans  of  adjust- 
ment between  conflicting  principles  seldom  attain  their  end. 

The  most  important  points,  accordingly,  were  first  of  all  discussed  be- 
tween Paul,  James,  Peter,  and  John.*  Then,  in  particular  circles,  in 
which  Paul  and  Barnabas  narrated  what  God  had  effected  by  their 
preaching  among  the  Gentiles,  their  accounts  were  received  with  joyful 
interest.  But  some  who  had  passed  over  to  Christianity  from  the  Phar- 
isaic school,  now  came  forward  and  declared  that  it  was  necessary  that 
the  Gentiles  should  receive  circumcision  along  with  the  gospel,  and  that 
they  could  acknowledge  them  as  Christian  brethren  only  on  this  condi- 
tion, and  therefore  insisted  that  Titus  should  be  circumcised.f  But  Paul 
strenuously  maintained  against  them  the  equal  privileges  of  the  Gentiles 

*  The  order  in  which  the  three  apostles  in  Gal.  ii.  9  are  mentioned,  is  not  unimportant. 
The  reading  according  to  which  James  stands  first,  is  without  doubt  the  true  one  ;  the  other 
must  have  been  derived  from  the  custom  of  giving  Peter  the  primacy  among  the  apostles. 
But  the  priority  is  given  to  James,  because  he  was  most  esteemed  by  the  Jewish  Christians, 
who  were  strict  observers  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  stood  at  the  head  of  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  while  Peter,  by  his  intercourse  with  the  Gentiles  and  Gentile  Christians,  was 
in  some  degree  estranged  from  that  party. 

\  As  appears  from  Paul's  own  representation,  he  had  no  share  in  any  part  of  this  pro- 
ceeding ;  for  he  distinguishes  expressly  (Gal.  ii.  4-6)  the  false  brethren  from  "  those  who 
seemed  to  be  somewhat,"  Sokovvtec  tlvai  tl.  By  the  name  of  false  brethren,  certainly  those 
persons  were  designated  who  did  not  acknowledge  tho  believing  Gentiles  as  true  brethren 
in  the  faith,  and  did  not  admit  the  principle  on  which  the  Christian  community  was 
founded,  that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  the  only  and  sufficient  means  of  salvation 
for  all.  Paul  was  one  with  the  apostles  in  opposition  to  these  views.  But  it  may  be 
asked  whether  that  dispute  broke  out  before  or  after  the  explanation  betwen  Paul  and 
the  elder  apostles.  The  former  is  far  more  probable  ;  for  as  that  explanation  was  for  him 
the  principal  object  of  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he  would  attend  to  it  before  anything  else. 


APOSTOLIC   COUNCIL.  125 


in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  that  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer  they  had  en- 
tered into  the  same  relation  towards  God  as  the  believing  Jews :  for  this 
reason,  he  would  not  give  way  to  them  in  reference  to  Titus,  for  this 
would  have  been  interpreted  by  the  Pharisaic  Jewish  Christians  as  a 
concession  of  the  principle  for  which  they  contended.* 

As  these  objections  gave  rise  to  much  altercation,  it  was  thought  nec- 
essary that  the  subject  should  be  discussed  in  a  convention  of  the  whole 
church ;  but  tins  was  afterwards  changed  into  a  meeting  of  chosen  dele- 
gates.f  At  this  meeting,  after  much  discussion,  Peter  rose  up,  to  appeal 
to  the  testimony  of  his  own  experience.  They  well  knew,  he  said,  that 
God  had  long  beforej  chosen  him,  to  bring  the  Gentiles  to  faith  in  the 
gospel ;  and  since  God  who  seeth  the  heart  had  communicated  to  them 
the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  same  manner  as  to  the  believers  from  among  the 
Jews,  he  had  by  this  act  testified  that  in  his  eyes  they  were  no  longer 
impure ;  that,  after  he  had  purified  their  hearts  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer, 
they  were  just  as  pure  as  the  believing  Jews ;  and  hence,  in  the  commu- 
nication of  spiritual  gifts,  He  had  made  no  difference  between  them. 
How  then  could  they  venture  to  question  the  power  and  grace  of  God, 
as  if  he  could  not  without  the  law  admit  the  Gentiles  to  a  participation 
of  salvation  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  "Why  would  they  lay  a  yoke  on 
believers,  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  had  been  able  to  bear? 
By  "  a  yoke"  Peter  certainly  did  not  mean  the  outward  observance  of 
ceremonies  simply  as  such,  for  he  himself  still  observed  them,  and  did 
not  wish  to  persuade  the  Jewish  Christians  to  renounce  them.  But  he 
meant  the  outward  observance  of  the  law,  so  far  as  it  proceeded   from 

*  The  reading  which  omits  "to  whom  not,"  olc  ovd>,  in  Gal.  ii.  5,  would  suppose,  on 
the  contrary,  a  concession  of  Paul  in  this  case,  but  which,  under  the  existing  circumstan- 
ces, would  be  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  apostle.  This  peculiar  read- 
ing of  the  old  Latin  church,  evidently  proceeded  in  part  from  the  difficulty  of  the  con 
struction  for  the  Latin  translation,  and  partly  from  the  perception  of  a  supposed  contradic- 
tion between  the  conduct  of  Paul  with  Titus,  and  his  conduct  with  Timothy,  and  likewise 
from  opposition  to  Marcion.  That  in  the  Greek  church,  which,  in  consequence  of. the 
principle  of  the  olnovofiia  predominating  in  it,  must  have  been  disposed  to  such  a  reading, 
no  trace  of  it  can  be  found,  proves  how  very  much  the  authority  of  the  manuscripts  is 
against  it. 

•f-  The  whole  church  was  far  too  numerous,  to  allow  of  all  its  members  meeting  for 
consultation ;  but  that  they  took  a  part  in  the  deliberations,  appears  inferrible  from  the 
words,  "  with  the  whole  church,"  abv  oat)  t-I)  EKKArioiy,  Acts  xv.  22.  The  epistle  to  the  Gen 
tile  Christians  was  written  in  the  name  not  merely  of  the  elders  of  the  church,  but  of  all 
the  Christian  brethren.  Also  the  words,  "all  the  multitude,"  ndv  rb  nXF/do?,  Acts  xv.  12, 
favor  this  interpretation. 

\  Peter's  words,  "a  good  while  ago,"  d<p'  fifiepuv  dpxaiuv,  are  of  some  value  for  a 
chronological  purpose,  since  they  evidently  show,  that  between  the  holding  of  this  assem- 
bly and  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  to  say. the  least,  a  tolerable  length  of  time  must  have 
elapsed.  Having  shown,  as  I  believe,  that  there  is  no  ground  for  regarding  the  narrative 
of  Cornelius  as  unhistorical,  I,  also,  fail  to  see  the  ground  for  Dr.  Baur's  position  that 
Peter  could  not  have  used  the  words  d$'  fj/xeptiv  upxiiuv.  They  are  used  relatively,  ar.  i 
only  a  trivial,  fault-seeking,  verbal  criticism  can  find  an  anachronism  in  them. 


126  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  GENTILE  CHURCH. 

an  internal  dominion  over  the  conscience,  making  justification  and  salva- 
tion dependent  upon  it ;  from  which  arose  the  dread  of  putting  their 
salvation  in  jeopardy  by  the  slightest  deviation  from  it,  and  that  tor- 
menting scrupulosity  which  invented  a  number  of  limitations,  in  order, 
by  self-imposed  restraint,  to  guard  against  every  possible  transgression 
of  the  law.  As  Peter  understood  the  term  in  this  sense,  he  could  add, 
"  But  we  also  by  faith  in  Jesus  as  our  Redeemer  have  been  freed  from 
the  yoke  of  the  law,  since  we  are  no  longer  bound  to  it  as  a  means  of 
justification ;  for  we,  as  well  as  the  Gentiles,  believe  that  we  shall  obtain 
salvation  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

•  These  words  of  Peter  made  a  deep  impression  on  many  and  a 
general  silence  followed.  After  a  while,  Barnabas,  who  had  for  years 
been  highly  esteemed  by  this  church,  rose,  and  then  Paul.  In  addition 
to  the  facts  reported  by  Peter  which  testified  the  operation  of  the  Di- 
vine Spirit  among  the  Gentiles,  they  mentioned  others  from  their  own 
experience,  and  recounted  the  miracles  by  which  God  had  aided  their 
labors.  When  the  minds  of  the  assembly  were  thus  prepared,  James* 
came  forward,  who,  on  account  of  his  strict  observance  of  the  law,  was 
held  in  the  greatest  reverence  by  the  Jews,  and  in  whose  words,  there- 
fore, the  greatest  confidence  would  be  placed.  He  brought  their  delib- 
erations to  a  close,  by  a  proposal  which  corresponded  to  his  own  peculiar 
moderation  and  mildness,  and  was  adapted  to  compose  the  existing  dif- 
ferences. Referring  to  Peter's  address,  he  said  that  this  apostle  had 
shown  how  God  had  already  received  the  Gentiles,  in  order  to  form  a 
people  dedicated  to  his  service.  And  this  agreed  with  the  predictions 
of  the  prophets,  who  had  foretold  that  in  the  times  when  the  decayed 
Theocracy  was  to  be  gloriously  revived,  the  worship  of  Jehovah  would 
be  extended  also  among  the  Gentiles.  Accordingly,  what  had  recently 
occurred  among  the  Gentiles  need  not  excite  their  astonishment.  God 
who  effected  all  this,  was  now  fulfilling  his  eternal  counsel,  as  he  had 
promised  by  his  prophets.  Since,  therefore,  by  this  eternal  counsel  of 
God,  the  Gentiles  were  to  be  incorporated  into  his  kingdom  by  the  Mes- 
siah, let  them  not  dare  to  do  anything  which  might  obstruct  or  retard 
the  progress  of  this  work.  They  ought  not  to  lay  any  unnecessary  bur- 
dens on  the  converted  Gentiles.  They  should  enjoin  nothing  more  upon 
them  than  abstinence  from  meat  offered  to  idolsf  or,  of  animals  strangled, 
from  blood  and  from  unchastity.J     But  as  to  believers  from  among  the 

*  The  question  whether  this  was  the  son  of  Alphseus,  or  another  person,  must  be  left 
for  future  examination. 

f  What  remained  of  the  flesh  of  animals  used  in  sacrifice,  was  partly  used  by  those 
who  presented  the  sacrifice  at  their  own  meals,  (especially  if  they  were  festive  in  honor 
of  the  gods,)  and  partly  disposed  of  in  the  market.  The  eating  of  what  was  called 
Q,nB    ly-^Y   was  regarded  by  the  Jews  with  the  greatest  detestation.     Pirke  Avoth.  ch. 

iii.  §3.  ": 

\  Most  of  these  points  belonged  to  the  seven  precepts,  to  the  observance  of  which 
men  were  bound  before  the  giving  of  the  Mosaic  law;  which  God  gave  the  sons  of  Noah, 


APOSTOLIC   COUNCIL.  12? 

Jews,  no  such  special  injunctions  were  needed  for  them.  They  already 
knew  what  they  were  to  practise  as  Jews;  for  in  every  city  where  Jews 
resided,  the  law  of  Moses  was  read  on  the  Sabbath  days  in  the  syna- 
gogues, Acts  xv.  21.*  The  concluding  words  were  to  reconcile  the 
Jews  to  that  freedom  from  the  Mosaic  law  which  was  allowed  to  the 
Gentile  Christians. 

The  resolutions  passed  on  this  occasion  had  for  their  object,  to  reduce 
by  mutual  approximation  the  opposition  existing  between  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians.  The  observance  of  these  ordinances  by  the  latter, 
would  tend  to  lessen,  and  by  degrees  to  destroy,  the  aversion  with 
which  native  Jews  were  wont  to  regard  as  impure,  men  who  had  been 
brought  up  as  idolaters ;  it  might  assist  us  in  forming  correct  notions  of 
their  feelings  to  compare  (though  the  cases  are  not  exactly  parallel)  the 

and  to  the  observance  of  which  the  Proselytes  of  the  Gate  bound  themselves.  Yid.  Buz- 
torf,  Lexicon  Talmudicum  et  Babbinicum,  sub  voce  ■>*. 

*  It  appears  to  me  entirely. impossible,  to  understand  the  words  in  Acts  xv.  21  (as 
they  have  been  understood  by  the  latest  expositors,  Meyer  and  Olshausen),  as  containing 
a  reason  for  what  had  been  said  just  before.  This  assembly  required  no  reason  why  they 
should  impose  so  much,  but  only  why  they  should  impose  no  more  on  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. Also  from  the  form  of  the  clauses  in  v.  19  and  20,  if  such  a  reference  existed, 
we  should  expect  to  find  a  reason  for  the  injunction  "that  we  trouble  not,"  fif]  nape- 
vox^elv.  These  words,  too,  taken  in  their  obvious  sense,  cannot  contain  the  positive  rea- 
son for  the  issuing  of  these  injunctions,  for  that  Moses  was  read  in  the  synagogue  every 
Sabbath-day,  should  rather  serve  as  a  foundation  of  a  requirement  for  the  observance  of 
the  whole  law.  But  in  verse  21,  the  emphasis  is  on  the  word  MuoP/c,  and  in  that  is  con- 
cealed an  antithesis  to  that  which  is  given  as  the  stand-point  for  the  converts  from  heathen- 
ism. But  as  to  what  concerns  the  Jews,  those  who  wish  to  observe  the  law,  we  need  to 
say  nothing  new  to  them,  for  they  can  hear  every  Sabbath  in  the  synagogue  what  Moses 
requires  of  them.  It  cannot  be  our  intention,  while  we  prescribe  no  more  than  this  to  the 
converts  from  heathenism,  to  diminish  the  reverence  of  the  Jews  for  the  Mosaic  law. 
Chrysostom  adopts  very  nearly  this  interpretation,  by  following  the  natural  connexion  of 
the  passage.  Horn.  33,  §  2 :  Kal  tva  fir}  tic  dvdvneveyKq,  Siari  /xrj  'lovdaioir  tu  avrd 
imori?.?iOfiev;  km/yaye  Xiyuv,  (and  that  no  one  may  bring  up  tho  question  why  we  en- 
join not  the  same  things  on  the  Jews,  he  added);  and  he  explains  the  words  v.  21,  tovt1 
eart,  Mua//c  avrolc  diateyeTai  avvexuc,  (that  is,  Moses  constantly  discourses  with  them.) 
It  gives  me  pleasure  to  agree  with  Dr.  Schneckenburger  in  my  view  of  this  psssage ;  see 
his  excellent  remarks,  in  his  work  before  quoted,  on  the  Acts,  p.  23. 

In  this  new  edition  I  must  adhere  to  this  explanation,  and  cannot  agree  with  that 
recommended  by  Dr.  Baur  after  Gieseler — namely,  that  these  words  contain  a  reason  for 
the  leading  thought  that  the  Gentiles,  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  must  be 
also  incorporated  In  the  kingdom  of  God;  for -if  this  could  have  been  effected  by  the 
Mosaic  law,  it  must  long  ago  have  been  brought  to  pass,  since  the  Mosaic  law  must  have 
been  sufficiently  known  to  them,  as  it  was  read  every  Sabbath  in  the  synagogues.  I  can- 
not find  this  sense  indicated  in  the  words.  Had  this  been  intended,  I  should  have  ex- 
pected an  addition  to  v.  21,  "in  every  city  in  which  Gentiles  dwell,"  and  yet  this  would 
have  said  too  much.  And  the  leading  thought — "  and  yet  this  has  not  effected  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles" — must  have  been  actually  expressed.  "We  should  consider  our- 
selves quite  unauthorized,  arbitrarily  to  supply  so  important  a  proposition.  According  tc 
my  view,  only  something  unessential  is  supplied  in  a  propositi  >n  which  the  speaker  merely 
expresses  incidentally,  and  then  hastens  away  from. 


128  DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE   GENTILE    CHURCH. 

relation  of  the  offspring  of  a  nation  where  Christianity  lias  long  been 
established  to  the  newly  converted  Christians  from  modern  heathenism. 
Buf  if  the  believing  Jews  could  not  bring  themselves  to  overcome  their 
prejudices  against  the  believing  Gentiles  as  an  circumcised,  it  would  be 
so  much  more  difficult  to  bring  such  "persons  closer  to  them,  if  they  did 
not  at  all  observe  what  was  required  of  the  usual  Proselytes,  and 
renounce  what  from  the  Jewish  point  of  view  appeared  closely  connected 
with  idolatry,  and  the  impure  life  of  idolaters.  And  as  these  ordinances 
would  serve  on  the  one  hand  to  bring  Gentile  Christians  nearer  to  Jewish 
Christians ;  so  on  the  other  hand,  they  might  contribute  to  withdraw  the 
former  more  from  the  usual  heathenish  mode  of  living,  and  guard  them 
against  the  pollution  of  heathen  society  and  heathenish  vices.  The  ex 
perience  of  the  next  century  teaches  us,  how  even  the  misunderstanding, 
which  made  out  of  these  ordinances  a  positive  law  applicable  to  all 
ages  of  the  Church,*  might  in  this  direction  work  for  good.  Viewing 
the  transaction  in  this  light,  it  is  indeed  surprising  that,  to  ordinances 
merely  disciplinary,  and  intended  for  only  oue  particular  period,  and  for 
persons  under  certain  peculiar  relations,  the  command  against  unchastity 
binding  in  all  ages,  and  relating  to  an  objectively  moral  point,  should  be 
annexed.  But  the  connexion  in  which  this  prohibition  appears,  furnishes 
the  best  explanation  of  the  cause  and  design  of  its  introduction.  "  For- 
nication," TTopveia,  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  other  points,  on 
account  of  the  close  connexion  in  which  it  appeared  to  the  Jews  to  stand 


*  In  the  first  ages,  Christians  were  distinguished  by  not  venturing  to  eat  any  of  the 
things  forbidden  in  this  injunction.  But  when  the  early  undiscriminating  opposition 
against  heathenism  had  ceased,  a  more  correct  view  was  taken,  which  Augustine  has 
beautifully  developed.  "  (Apostoli)  eligisse  mihi  videntur  pro  tempore  rem  facilem  et  ne- 
quaquam  observantibus  onerosam,  in  qua  cum  Israelitis  etiam  gentes  propter  angularem 
ilium  lapidem  duos  in  se  condentem  aliquid  communiter  observarent.  Transacto  vero  illo 
tempore,  quo  illi  duo  parietes,  unus  ex  circumcisione,  alter  ex  praeputio  venientes,  quamvia 
in  angulari  lapide  concordarent,  tamen  suis  quibusdam  proprietatibus  distinctius  emine- 
bant,  ac  ubi  ecclesia  gentium  talis  effecta  est,  ut  in  ea  nullus  Israelita  carnalis  appareat, 
quis  jam  hoc  Christianus  observat,  ut  turdas  vel  minutiores  aviculas  non  adtingat,  nisi 
quarum  sanguis  effusus  est,  aut  leporem  non  edat,  si  manu  a  cervice  percussus  nulla 
cruento  vulnere  occisus  est  ?  Et  qui  forte  pauci  tangere  ista  formidant  a  casteris  irridentur, 
ita  omnium  animos  in  hac  re  tonuit  sententia  veritatis."  Matt.  xv.  11.  Augustin  c.  Fans- 
turn  Manich.  lib.  xxxii.  c.  13.  (The  apostles  seem  to  me  to  have  chosen  for  the  time  f 
thing  easy  and  in  no  way  burdensome,  which  the  Gentiles  also  together  with  the  Israel- 
ites, in  virtue  of  that  corner-stone  hiding  them  both  in  itself,  might  observe.  But  the 
time  having  passed  in  which  the  two  walls,  one  of  circumcision  the  other  of  uncircumcis- 
ion,  although  uniting  in  the  corner-stone,  stood  out  boldly  in  their  own  peculiarities ; 
and  the  church  of  the  Gentiles  having  become  such  that  no  carnal  Israelite  may  appear  in 
it ;  what  Christian  now  scruples  to  touch  a  thrush  or  smaller  bird  whose  blood  has  not 
been  spilled,  or  to  eat  a  hare  strangled  by  the  hand  and  not  killed  by  a  cruel  wound  ? 
And  the  few,  who,  by  chance,  fear  to  touch  these  things  are  laughed  at  by  others.  So 
has  the  truth  in  this  matter  taken  hold  of  the  minds  of  all.)  The  opposite  view,  it  is  true, 
was  maintained  in  the  Greek  Church,  in  which  the  injunction  of  abstinence  from  blood  and 
from  animals  strangled  was  confirmed  by  the  Second  Trullanian  Council,  in  the  year  692 


APOSTOLIC    COUNCIL.  129 

with  idolatry  ;  for  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  see  idolatry  and  unchastity  everywhere  placed  together  ;  exces- 
ses of  this  class  were  actually  connected  with  many  parts  of  idolatry ;  and  in 
general  the  strict  idea  of  chastity  lay,  on  the  whole,  far  from  the  views  and 
practices  of  natural  religion.  It  is  introduced  here  not  as  a  special  moral 
precept  of  Christianity  ;  in  that  case,  it  would  not  have  heen  so  insulated 
a>8  a  positive  command,  but  would  rather  have  been  deduced  from  its 
connexion  with  the  whole  of  the  Christian  faith  and  life  as  we  find  it  in 
the  Apostolic  Epistles.  Here  it  is  introduced  as  a  part  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  opposition  to  every  thing  which  appeared  connected  with  idolatry, 
and  this  opposition  was  now  to  be  toansferred  to  the  new  Christian 
Church. 

Although  these  injunctions  had  the  precise  object  mentioned,  and  doubt- 
less, ultimately  attained  it,  yet  we  cannot  conclude  with  certainty,  that 
James  had  a  clear  perception  of  it  in  all  its  extent,  when  he  proposed  this 
middle  way.  As  the  persons  who  composed  this  assembly  acted  not  merely 
according  to  the  suggestions  of  human  prudence,  but  chiefly  as  the  organs 
of  a  higher  spirit  that  animated  them,  of  a  higher  wisdom  that  guided 
them,  it  would  follow,  that  their  injunctions  served  certain  ends  in  the 
guidance  of  the  church,  which  were  not  perfectly  clear  to  their  own  ap- 
prehension. Even  James  himself  does  not  develop  the  motives  which 
determined  him  to  propose  such  a  measure.  In  this  assembly  there  was 
no  occasion,  as  we  have  before  remarked,  to  mention  the  motives,  but 
merely  to  develop  the  reason,  why  no  more  than  this,  and  not  the  whole 
law,  should  be  imposed  on  Christians  ;  and  this  reason  accordingly,  he 
deduced  from  what  he  and  the  other  apostles  recognised  as  the  central 
point  of  the  Christian  faith.  Possibly  James,  without  any  distinct  views 
and  aims,  only  believed  that  something  must  be  done  for  the  Gentile 
Christians,  (who  were  to  be  acknowledged  as  members  of  God's  kingdom, 
with  equal  privileges,  in  virtue  of  their  faith  in  Jehovah  and  the  Messiah,) 
to  bring  them  nearer,  as  it  regarded  their  outward  mode  of  life  also,  like 
the  Proselytes  of  the  Gate,*  to  Judaism  and  the  Jews.f 

*  I  mean  only  analogous  regulations ;  for  had  there  been  simply  a  transference  of  such 
as  were  enjoined  on  Proselytes  of  the  Gate,  it  would  have  been  sufficient  to  require  of 
the  Gentile  Christians,  among  whom  many  Proselytes  of  the  Gate  might  be  found,  that 
they  should  submit  to  all  the  regulations  which  had  hitherto  been  observed  by  persons  of 
that  class. 

f  Luther,  who  was  far  from  the  restricted,-  unnatural  notion  of  inspiration,  and  the 
slavish  adherence  to  the  letter,  maintained  by  the  theologians  of  the  17th  century,  says, 
in  reference  to  this  proposal  of  James  (vol.  iii.  p.  1042  of  Walch's  edition),  "that  the  Holy 
Spirit  allowed  St.  James  to  make  a  false  step."  But  even  if  James  had  not  before  him  that 
higher  object,  the  guidance  of  the  church,  this  ought  not  to  be  called  a  false  step,  in 
relation  to  the  peculiar  position  which  he  took  in  the  historical  development  of  primi- 
tive Christianity;  for  he  was  appointed  by  the  Lord  of  the  church  to  occupy  the  inter- 
mediate point  which  was  to  connect  the  Old  Testament  with  the  independent  develop- 
ment of  the  New,  and  from  which  he  was  to  infuse  the  new  spirit  of  the  gospel  into  the 
form  of  the  Old  Testament.    It  becomes  us,  when  we  are  considering  the  joint  labors  of 

9 


130  DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE    GENTILE   CHURCH. 

But  although  it  was  not  necessary  in  this  public  assembly,  to  develop 
in  a  positive  manner  the  motives  for  framing  these  injunctions,  we  are 
certainly  not  to  assume,  that  the  apostles  left  the  decision  of  the  princi- 
ples on  which  they  meant  to  act  towards  Gentile  Christians  to  the  delib- 
erations of  this  meeting ;  but  as  we  Have  before  remarked,  they  most 
probably  brought  forward  only  what  seemed  to  them  in  their  private 
conference  best  adapted  for  their  object ;  in  that  consultation  it  was 
necessary  to  discuss  the  motives  for  these  injunctions,  and  the  objects 
which  it  was  proposed  to  attain  by  them  ;  for  in  relation  to  what  Paul 
desired — that  to  those  among  the  Gentiles  who  acknowledged  Jesus  as 
the  Messiah,  nothing  further  should  be  prescribed — a  conciliatory  pro- 
posal of  this  kind  must  have  been  accompanied  by  a  statement  of  grounds 
for  it.  And  as  we  must  acknowledge  in  James  the  power  of  the  Chris- 
tian spirit,  which  subordinated  to  the  interests  of  Christianity  his  attach- 
ment to  Judaism  and  the  forms  of  the  ancient  theocracy  ;  so  in  Paul,  who 
was  so  zealous  for  the  independence  of  Christianity  and  of  the  Gentile 
churches,  we  must  recognise  a  zeal  tempered  by  Christian  wisdom,  which 
yielded  to  a  measure  of  accommodation  determined  by  circumstances.* 

The  resolutions  adopted  on  this  occasion  were  now  communicated  to 
the  Gentile  churches  in  Syria  and  Cilicia,f  in  an  epistle  drawn  up  in  the 
name  of  the  assembly ;  and  two  persons  of  good  repute  in  the  church, 
perhaps  members  of  the  Presbytery  at  Jerusalem,  Barsabas  and  Silas 
(Sylvanus),  were  chosen  as  bearers  of  it,  and  were  to  accompany  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  and  counterwork  the  intrigues  of  their  Judazing  oppo- 
nents. We  will  here  insert  this  short  epistle,  probably  dictated  by  James 
himself,  and  the  earliest  public  document  of  the  Christian  church  known 
to  us.J     It  is  as  follows  :    "  The  Apostles  and  Elders,  and   Brethren,§ 

the  apostles,  to  observe  attentively  the  whole  scheme  of  organic  historical  development, 
in  which  each  member  takes  his  appropriate  station  and  all  are  designed  to  be  comple- 
ments to  one  another. 

*  Luther  beautifully  remarks,  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  "  Therefore  James  pre- 
scribes and  the  others  consent,  it  is  enough  for  them  that  their  consciences  are  still  left 
free  and  unfettered;  as  for  the  decree,  that,  they  think,  will  of  necessity,  gradually 
become  void ;  they  are  not  so  contentious  as  to  wish  to  quarrel  about  a  little  thing,  pro- 
vided it  be  in  no  way  injurious. 

\  The  injunctions  were  designed,  it  is  true,  for  all  Gentile  Christians,  but  the  epistle  was 
addressed  only  to  the  churches  specified  in  it,  because  in  these  the  dispute  had  first  of  all 
arisen,  and  because  they  must  have  been  respected,  as  parent  churches  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, with  which  the  later  formed  Asiatic  churches  would  connect  themselves.  Hence 
also  Paul,  in  Gal.  i.  21,  as  a  general  description  of  the  sphere  of  his  labors,  mentions  only 
"the  regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia,"  Klt/xara  rijc  Zvpiac;  nai  rF/g  Kt?UKcag. 

X  The  style  of  this  document  (marked  by  simplicity  and  extreme  brevity)  testifies  its 
originality.  Had  the  author  of  the  Acts  set  himself  to  compose  such  an  epistle,  and  at- 
tempted to  assume  the  situation  of  the  writer,  it  would  have  been  a  very  different  com- 
position. And  hence  we  may  draw  a  conclusion  relative  to  the  discourses  given  in  the 
Acts. 

§  According  to  the  reading  adopted  by  Lachmann,  it  would  be,  "The  Apostles  and 
Presbyters,   Christian   brethren" ;   they  wrote  as  brethren  to  brethren.     This  reading  is 


APOSTOLIC    COUNCIL.  131 

send  greeting  to  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch,  and 
Syria,  and  Cilicia.*  Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard,  that  certain  which 
went  out  from  us,  have  troubled  you  with  words,  saying  ye  must  be  cir- 
cumcised, and  keep  the  law,  to  whom  we  gave  no  such  commandment : 
it  seemed  good  unto  us  being  assembled  together,!  to  send  chosen  men 
unto  you,  with  our  beloved  Barnabas  and  Paul, — men  that  have  hazarded 
their  lives  for  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  have  therefore 
sent  Judas  and  Silas,  who  shall  also  tell  you  the  same  things  by  mouth.J 
For  it  seemed  good  to  us,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,§  to  lay 


strongly  supported.  "We  can  hardly  deduce  its  origin  from  hierarchical  influences,  which 
would  exclude  the  church  from  such  consultations  and  decisions :  its  antiquity  is  too  great, 
for  we  find  it  in  Irenseus,  iii.  12, 14.  It  is  also  quite  as  much  against  the  hierarchical  spirit 
for  the  apostles  and  presbyters  to  write  to  the  brethren  as  brethren.  And  it  is  easy  to  see 
how  it  might  have  happened  that  since,  from  the  introductory  words  of  Luke,  an  epistle 
from  the  whole  church  was  expected,  it  seemed  necessary  to  distinguish  the  brethren  from 
the  apostles  and  presbyters,  and  hence  the  words  ko.1  ol  might  have  been  inserted.  Yet 
since,  in  Acts  xv.  22,  the  whole  church  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  apostles  and 
presbyters,  we  might  expect  in  the  epistle  itself  a  distinct  reference  to  the  church ;  the 
"  from  us,"  ef  fyfiuv,  also,  of  verse  24  (for  these  anonymous  complainers  could  hardly  have 
belonged  to  the  presbyters  of  the  church)  appears  to  assume  this.  The  first  /cat  ol,  verse 
23,  must  therefore  at  an  early  date  have  occasioned  the  omission  of  the  second. 

9  The  "greeting,"  ^fupe^here  wants  the  ev  nvplu, "in  the  Lord,"  which  is  so  common 
in  the  Pauline  epistles ;  and  it  deserves  notice  also  that,  as  a  form  of  salutation,  xa'<-P£lv  is 
found  only  in  the  Epistle  of  James. 

+  The  words  yhvo/iEvoiq  6/j.odv/iadov,  I  do  not  understand  with  Meyer,  "  being  unani- 
mous," but,  "when  we  were  met  together;"  as  6fio8vfia6dv  often  denotes  in  the  Acts,  not, 
"of  one  mind,"  but,  "together,"  as  in  ii.  46.  We  may  see  from  the  Alexandrian  version, 
and  Josephus  (Antiq.  xix.  9,  §  1).  how  the  change  of  meaning  has  occurred. 

%  The  explanation  of  this  passage,  Acts  xv.  27,  is  in  every  way  difficult.  If  we  refer 
"  the  same  things,"  rd  avrd,  to  what  goes  before,  the  sense  will  be, — they  will  announce 
to  you  the  same  things  that  Barnabas  and  Paul  have  announced  to  you.  So  I  understood 
the  words  in  the  first  edition  of  this  work.  The  words  Sid  "koyov,  "by  mouth,"  are  not 
exactly  against  this  interpretation ;  for  though  these  words  contained  reference  to  what 
followed  in  writing,  they  might  be  thus  connected,  namely,  as  we  now  in  writing  also 
express  the  same  principles.  But  since  mention  is  not  made  before  of  the  preaching  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul,  and  we  must  therefore  supply  something  not  before  indicated, 
and  since'  the  words  did  loyov  contain  a  reference  to  what  follows,  and  therefore  not 
KarayyeXXeiv,  but  uirayytXleiv  is  here  used,  I  now  prefer  the  other  interpretation, 
although  in  this  case  likewise,  it  is  difficult  to  supply  what  is  necessary.  In  Irenajus  we 
find  a  reading  which  presents  the  sense  required  by  the  connexion  in  a  way  that  removes 
all  difficulties,  but  must  perhaps  be  considered  as  an  exposition :  t//v  yvufinv  f/fiuv,  our 
opinion,  instead  of  rd  avrd,  the  same  things, — annuntiantes  nostram  sententiam.  Iren.  ii.i 
12,  14. 

§  In  the  explanation  also  of  Acts  xv.  28,  I  depart,  and  with  greater  confidence,  from 
my  former  view.  Agreeably  to  the  manner  in  which  6okeiv  is  everywhere  used  with  the 
dative  of  the  person  as  the  subject,  I  cannot  help  understanding  it  to  be  so  used  with  the 
words  t£>  dyltf)  nveifiart,  especially  since  if  it  meant,  by  "the  Holy  Spirit,"  we  should,  ac- 
cording to  the  New  Testament  idiom,  expect  iv  to  be  prefixed.  It  is  therefore  stated 
first:  it  has  so  pleased  the  Holy  Spirit — then  :  we  as  his  organs  have  resolved.  Although 
the  affair  was  determined  according  to  both,  it  was  important  to  mention  first,  that  this 


T32  DEVELOPMENT    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHURCH. 

upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary  things — that  ye  abstain 
from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled, 
and  from  unchastity ;  from  which,  if  ye  keep  yourselves,*  ye  shall  do  well. 
Fare  ye  well." 

We  may  conclude  from  this  epistle,  that  those  who  had  raised  the 
controversy  in  the  Antiochian  church,  had  appealed  to  the  authority  of 
the  apostles  and  presbytery.  Perhaps  they  represented  themselves  as 
delegates  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem, — as  this  was  afterwards  made  of 
importance  by  the  adversaries  of  Paul — but  they  were  not  acknowledged 
as  such.  We  see  how  important  it  was  for  the  apostles  to  accredit  Paul 
and 'Barnabas  as  faithful  preachers  of  the  gospel,  and  to  give  a  public 
testimony  to  their  agreement  in  spirit  with  them.  Yet  we  cannot  help 
remarking  the  brevity  of  the  epistle — the  want  of  a  pouring  forth  of  the 
heart  towards  the  new  Christians  of  an  entirely  different  race — the  ab- 
sence of  the  development  of  the  views  on  which  the  resolutions  passed 
were  founded.  The  epistle  was  without  doubt  dictated  in  haste,  and 
must  be  taken  only  for  an  official  document,  as  the  credentials  of  an  oral 
communication.  But  they  depended  more  on  the  living  word,  than  on 
written  characters.  Hence,  while  the  written  communication  was  so 
brief,  they  sent  living  organs  to  Antioch,  who  would  explain  every  thing 
more  fully  according  to  the  sense  of  this  meeting. 

Thus  Paul  and  Barnabas,  having  happily  attained  their  object  at 
Jerusalem,  returned  to  the  Gentile  Christians  at  Antioch  with  these 
pledges  of  Christian  fellowship,  and  accompanied  by  the  two  delegates. 
Barnabas  took  also  his  nephew  Mark  with  him  from  Jerusalem,  to  be  an 
assistant  in  the  common  work.  He  had  formerly  accompanied  them  on 
their  first  missionary  travels  in  Asia,  but  had  not  remained  faithful  to 
his  vocation ;  giving  way  to  his  feelings  of  attachment  for  his  native 
country,  he  had  left  them  when  they  entered  Pamphylia.  At  Jerusalem, 
Barnabas  met  with  him  again,  and  perhaps  by  his  remonstrances,  brought 
him  to  a  sense  of  his  former  misconduct,  so  that  he  once  more  joined 
them. 

This  decision  of  the  Apostolic  Assembly  at  Jerusalem,  forms  an  im- 
portant era  in  the  history  of  the  apostolic  church.  The  first  controversy 
which  appeared  in  the  history  of  Christianity  was  thus  publicly  expressed 
and  brought  into  clear  recognition ;  but  it  was  at  the  same  time  mani- 
fested, that,  by  this  controversy,  the  unity  of  the  church  was  not  to  be 
destroyed.  Although  so  great  and  striking  a  difference  of  an  outward 
kind  existed  in  the  development  of  the  church  among  the  Jews  and  of 
that  among  the   Gentiles,  still   the   essential   unity  of  the  church,  as 


resolution  was  not  formed  according  to  human  caprice,  but  that  the  Holy  Spirit  so  willed 
it.     I  translate  in  the  text,  not  verbally,  but  according  to  the  sense. 

*  The  expression  in  Acts  xv.  29,  "  from  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves,"  it;  uv  diaTTjpovv- 
reg  iavrodg  is  remarkably  similar  to  that  in  James  i.  27,  "  to  keep  himself  unspotted  froM 
the  world,"  aoiu'kov  iavrbv  Tt]peXv  unb  rov  aoofiov. 


APOSTOLIC   COUNCIL.  133 

grounded  on  real  communion  of  internal  faith  and  life,  continued  undis- 
turbed, and  thus  it  was  manifest  that  the  unity  was  independent  of  such 
outward  differences :  it  became  henceforth  a  settled  point,  that  though 
one  party  observed  and  the  other  party  neglected  certain  outward  usages, 
yet  both,  in  virtue  of  their  common  fiith  in  Jesus  as  the  Redeemer,  had 
received  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  certain  mark  of  their  participating  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Nor  were  these  differences  merely  outward  dissimi- 
larities ;  but,  as  we  might  conclude  from  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  modes 
of  thinking  ampng  the  Jews,*  which  mingled  itself  with  their  concep- 
tions of  Christianity,  it  involved  several  doctrinal  differences.  The  lat- 
ter, however,  were  not  brought  under  discussion  ;  those  points  only  were 
touched  which  were  most  palpable,  and  appeared  the  most  important 
from  the  Jewish  stand-point  of  legal  observances.  While  they  firmly 
held  one  ground  of  faith, — faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  a'  con- 
sciousness of  fellowship  in  the  one  spirit  proceeding  from  him, — they 
either  lost  sight  altogether  of  these  differences,  or  viewed  them  in  rela- 
tion to  their  common  faith,  the  foundation  of  the  all-comprehending 
kingdom  of  God,  as  very  subordinate.  But  at  a  later  period  these  dif- 
ferences would,  if  not  overpowered  by  the  energy  of  a  Christian  spirit 
progressively  developed,  and  insinuating  itself  more  deeply  into  the 
prevalent  modes  of  thinking,  appear  in  greater  strength.  Even  by  this 
wise  settlement  of  the  question,  so  serious  a  breach  could  not  be  repaired, 
if  not  fundamentally  rectified  by  the  operation  of  that  Spirit  from  whom 
this  settlement  proceeded.  As  those  who  were  addicted  to  Pharisaism 
were,  from  the  first,  accustomed  to  esteem  a  Christianity  amalgamated 
with  complete  Judaism,  as  alone  genuine  and  perfect,  and  rendering  men 
capable  of  enjoying  all  the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  it  was 
hardly  possible  that  these  decisions  could  produce  an  entire  revolution  in 
their  mode  of  thinking ;  whether  it  was  that  they  soon  ceased  to  pay 
regard  to  the  decisions  of  the  assembly  at  Jerusalem,  or  that  they  ex- 
plained them  according  to  their  own  views  and  interests,  as  if  indeed, 
though  they  had  not  commanded  the  observance  of  the  law  to  Gentile 
Christians,  they  were  designed  to  intimate  that  it  would  be  to  their  ad- 
vantage, if  voluntarily,  and  out  of  love  to  Jehovah,  they  observed  the 
whole  law.  And  as  they  had  not  hesitated,  before  the  assembly  was 
called  at  Jerusalem,  to  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  apostles,  although 
they  were  by  no  means  authorized  to  do  so,  they  again  attempted  to 
make  use  of  this  expedient,  of  which  they  could  more  readily  avail 
themselves  on  account  of  the  great  distance  of  most  of  the  Gentile 
churches  from  Jerusalem. 

Thus  we  have  here  the  first  example  of  an  accommodation  of  differ- 
ences which  arose  in  the  development  of  the  church,  an  attempt  to  effect 
a  union  of  two  contending  parties ;  and  we  here  see  what  has  been  often 
repeated,  that  union  can  only  be  attained  where  it  proceeds  from  an  in- 

*  See  page  27. 


134  CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

ternal  unity  of  Christian  consciousness;  but  where  the  reconciliation  is 
only  external,  the  deeply-seated  differences,  though  for  a  brief  period 
repressed,  will  soon  break  out  afresh.  But  what  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, we  here  behold  the  seal  of  true  Catholicism  publicly  exhibited 
by  the  apostles,  and  the  genuine  apostolic  church.  The  existence  of  the 
genuine  catholic  church,  which  so  deeply-seated  a  division  threatened  to 
destroy,  was  thereby  secured. 

We  are  now  arrived  at  a  point  of  time  in  which  the  Gentile  church 
assumed  a  peculiar  and  independent  form;  we  will,  therefore,  before 
tracing  its  further  spread  and  development  in  connexion  with  the  labors 
of  Paul,  first  glance  at  the  constitution  of  the  church  in  this  new  form 
of  Christian  fellowship. 


CHAPTEE   V. 

THE   CONSTITUTION   OF   THE    CHURCH,    AND     THE    ECCLESIASTICAL    U8AOB8 
OF   THE    GENTILE    CHRISTIANS. 

The  forms  under  which  the  polity  of  the  Christian  community  at  first 
developed  itself,  were,  as  we  have  before  remarked,  very  nearly  resem- 
bling those  which  already  existed  in  the  Jewish  church.  But  these 
forms,  adopted  by  Jewish  Christians,  would  not  have  been  transferred  to 
the  Gentile  churches,  if  they  had  not  so  closely  corresponded  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  Christian  community  as  to  furnish  a  model  for  its  organization. 
This  peculiar  nature  of  the  Christian  community  was  that  which  distin- 
guished the  Christian  church  from  all  other  religious  associations,  and 
which  especially  showed  itself  after  Christianity  had  burst  the  fetters  of 
Judaism,  among  the  free  and  independent  churches  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. Since  Christ  had  satisfied  once  for  all  that  religious  need,  from 
the  sense  of  which  a  priesthood  has  every  where  originated, — that  need 
of  mediation  grounded  in  man's  consciousness  of  separation  from  God 
by  sin — there  was  no  longer  room  or  necessity  for  any  other  priesthood. 
If,  in  the  Apostolic  Epistles,  the  Old  Testament  ideas  of  a  priesthood,  a 
priestly  cultus  and  sacrifices  are  applied  to  the  new  economy,  it  is  only 
with  the  design  of  showing,  that,  since  Christ  has  for  ever  accomplished 
that  which  the  priesthood  and  sacrifices  in  the  Old  Testament  prefigured, 
the  reconciliation  of  God  to  men, — all  who  now  appropriate  by  faith  what 
he  effected  for  mankind,  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  God,  without  need- 
ing any  other  mediation;  that  they  are  all  by  communion  with  Christ 
dedicated  and  consecrated  to  God,  and  are  called  to  present  their  whole 
lives  to  God  as  an  acceptable,  spiritual  thank-offering ;  that  their  whole 
consecrated  activity  is  a  true  spiritual,  priestly  cultus,  Christians  forming 
a  divine  kingdom  of  priests.     Rom.  xii.  1 ;  1  Peter  ii.  9.     This  idea  of 


USAGES    OF    THE    GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  135 

the  gospel  priesthood  of  all  Christians,  proceeding  from  the  conscious- 
ness of  redemption,  and  grounded  alone  in  that,  is  partly  stated  and  de- 
veloped in  express  terms,  and  partly  presupposed  in  the  epithets,  images, 
and  comparisons,  applied  to  the  Christian  life. 

As  all  believers  were  conscious  of  an  equal  relation  to  Christ  as  their 
Redeemer,  and  of  a  common  participation  of  communion  with  God  ob- 
tained through  him ;  so  on  this  consciousness  an  equal  relation  of  be- 
lievers to  one  another  was  grounded,  which  utterly  precluded  any  relation 
like  that  found  in  other  forms  of  religion,  subsisting  between  a  priestly 
caste  and  a  people  of  whom  they  were  the  mediators  and  spiritual 
guides.  The  apostles  even  were  very  far  from  placing  themselves 
in  a  relation  to  believers  which  bore  any  resemblance  to  a  mediating 
priesthood;  in  this  respect  they  always  placed  themselves  on  a  footing 
of  equality.  If  Paul  assured  the  church  of  his  intercessory  prayers  for 
them,  he  in  return  requested  their  prayers  for  himself.  There  were 
accordingly  no  persons  in  the  Christian  church,  who,  like  the  priests 
of  antiquity,  claimed  the  possession  of  an  esoteric  doctrine,  while  they 
kept  the  people  in  a  state  of  spiritual  pupillage  and  dependence  on  them- 
selves, as  their  sole  guides  and  instructors  in  religious  matters.  Such  a 
relation  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  consciousness  of  an  equal 
dependence  on  Christ,  and  an  equal  relation  to  him  as  participating  in 
the  same  spiritual  life.  The  first  Pentecost  had  given  evidence  that  a 
consciousness  of  the  higher  life  proceeding  from  communion  with  Christ 
filled  all  believers,  and  similar  effects  were  produced  at  every  season  of 
Christian  awakening  which  preceded  the  formation  of  a  church.  The 
apostle  Paul,  in  the  4th  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  points 
out  as  a  common  feature  of  Judaism  and  heathenism,  the  condition  of 
pupillage,  of  bondage  to  outward  ordinances.  He  represents  this  bond- 
age and  pupillage  as  taken  away  by  the  consciousness  of  redemption, 
and  that  the  same  spirit  ought  to  be  in  all  Christians.  He  contrasts  the 
heathen,  who  blindly  followed  their  priests,  and  gave  themselves  up  to 
all  their  arts  of  deception,  with  true  Christians,  who,  by  faith  in  the  Re- 
deemer, have  themselves  become  the  organs  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and 
can  hear  the  voice  of  the  living  God  within  them;  1  Cor.  xii.  1.  He 
even  thought  that  he  should  assume  too  much  to  himself,  if,  in  relation 
to  a  church  already  grounded  in  spiritual  things,  he  represented  himself 
only  as  giving ;  for  in  this  respect  there  should  be  only  one  general  giver, 
the  Saviour  himself,  as  the  source  of  all  life  in  the  church,  while  all 
others,  as  members  of  the  spiritual  body  animated  by  him  the  Head, 
should  stand  to  each  other  in  the  mutual  relation  of  givers  and  receivers. 
Hence  it  was,  that  after  he  had  written  to  the  Romans  that  he  longed  to 
come  to  them  in  order  to  impart  some  spiritual  gift  for  their  establish- 
ment, he  added,  lest  he  should  seem  to  arrogate  too  much  to  himself, 
"  that  is,  that  I  may  be  comforted,  together  with  you,  by  the  mutual 
faith  both  of  you  and  me;"  Rom.  i.  12. 

Christianity,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  common 


136  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

higher  principle  of  life,  gave  to  the  church  a  unity,  lifted  above  every 
other  principle  of  union  among  men,  destined  to  subordinate  to  itself, 
and,  in  this  subordination  to  adjust  and  harmonize,  all  the  varieties 
founded  in  the  development  of  human  nature.  Bat,  on  the  other  hand, 
mental  peculiarities  were  not  annihilated  by  this  divine  life,  since,  in  all 
cases,  it  followed  the  laws  of  the  natural  development  of  man;  but  it 
rather  purified,  sanctified,  and  transformed  them,  and  promoted  their 
freer  and  more  complete  expansion.  This  higher  unity  of  life  was  to  ex- 
hibit itself  in  a  multiplicity  of  individualities,  animated  by  the  Spirit,  and 
forming  reciprocal  complements  to  each  other  as  parts  of  one  vast  whole 
in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Consequently,  the  manner  in  which  this  divine 
life  expressed  and  manifested  itself  in  each,  must  be  determined  by  the 
previous  mental  individuality  of  each.  It  is  true  the  apostle  Paul  says, 
"  But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  selfsame  Spirit,  dividing  to  every 
man  severally  as  he  will"  1  Cor.  xii.  11 ;  but  it  by  no  means  follows, 
that  he  supposes  an  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  totally  unconditioned. 
In  this  passage,  he  is  simply  opposing  an  arbitrary  human  valuation, 
which  would  attribute  a  worth  to  only  certain  gifts  of  grace,  and  refused 
to  acknowledge  the  manifoldness  in  their  distribution.  The  analogy  to 
the  members  of  the  human  body,  of  which  the  apostle  afterwards  avails 
himself,  betokens  the  not  arbitrary  but  regulated  development  of  the 
new  creation  in  a  sanctified  natural  order ;  for  it  is  evident  from  this 
analogy,  that  as,  among  the  members  of  the  human  body,  each  has  its 
determinate  place  assigned  by  nature,  and  its  appropriate  function,  so 
also  the  divine  life,  in  its  development,  follows  a  similar  law,  grounded 
on  the  natural  relations  of  the  individual  qualities  animated  by  it. 

From  what  has  just  been  said,  we  are  prepared  for  rightly  understand- 
ing the  idea  of  charism,  so  very  important  for  the  history  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Christian  life,  and  of  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
church  in  the  first  ages.  In  the  apostolic  age,  it  denoted  nothing  else 
than  the  predominant  capability  of  an  individual  in  which  the  power  and 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  animated  him  was  revealed  ;*  whether 
this  capability  appeared  as  something  communicated  in  an  immediate 
manner  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  whether  it  was  already  existing  in  the  in- 
dividual before  his  conversion,  and  animated,  sanctified,  and  elevated  by 
the  new  principle  of  life,  was  to  serve  one  common  and  supreme  object, 
the  inward  and  outward  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  the 
church  of  Christ.f     That  which  is  the  soul  of  the  whole  Christian  life, 

0  The  "  manifestation  of  the  Spirit,"  (<t>avepuoic  tov  irvevparos)  peculiar  to  each  person, 
f  The  word  most  generally  used,  whereby  (since  Paul  has  used  it  in  this  sense)  is  sig- 
nified all  that  concerns  the  internal  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  God — whether  in 
reference  to  the  church  in  general,  or  to  individuals — is  "  to  edify,"  (oiKodofieiv.)  This 
ase  of  the  word  arises  from  the  practice  of  comparing  the  Christian  life  of  the  whole 
church,  and  its  individual  members,  to  a  building,  a  temple  of  God  which  is  built  on 
the  foundation  on  which  this  building  necessarily  rests,  1  Cor.  iii.  9,  10,  and  is  in  a  state 
of  continual  progress  towards  completion.     On  this  progressive  building  of  the  temple  of 


USAGES    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  137 

and.  orms  its  ii  ward  unity,  the  faith  working  by  love,  can  never  appear 
as  a  particular  charism  ;  for  as  this  it  is  which  forms  the  essence  of  the 
who^e  Christian  disposition,  so  it  is  this  which  must  govern  all  the  par- 
ticular Christian  capabilities  ;  and  it  is  because  they  are  all  regulated  by 
this  common  principle  of  the  Christian  disposition,  that  the  particular 
capabilities  become  charisma  ;  1  Cor.  xiii ;  which  Schleiermacher  also 
acknowledges  in  his  work  on  Christian  Morals,  p.  308.  Yet  we  cannot 
perfectly  agree  with  him  when  he  asserts  that  .the  predominant  Christian 
idea  for  everything  which  can  be  called  virtue  in  the  higher  sense  of  the 
word,  is  ^aptajua.  It  is  true,  that  inasmuch,  as  along  with  the  Christian 
disposition  all  the  virtues  pertaining  to  its  practical  exemplification  in  life 
are  not  given  at  once — inasmuch  as  its  development  is  gradual,  and  as 
hence  it  may  follow,  that  in  the  unity  of  the  same  disposition,  one  virtue 
may  predominate  in  one  person,  and  another  in  another,  the  name 
Charism  may  be  applied  to  the  prominent  virtue.  Yet  this  difference  is 
found  to  exist :  for  the  full  soundness  of  the  Christian  life  in  every  man, 
and  for  the  good  success  of  every  labor  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  co- 
operation of  all  the  fundamental  or  cardinal  virtues  is  required ;  but  the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  all  the  peculiar  capabilities  which  are  marked  by 
the  name  of  Charisms,  lying  outside  the  department  of  morals,  although 
appropriated  by  it.  Thus  it  cannot  be  laid  down  as  a  requirement,  that 
they  should  all  be  found  together  in  every  individual.  Rather  is  this 
excluded  by  the  idea  of  individuality.  Peculiar  charisms  belong  to  one, 
which  do  not  exist  in  others  ;  and  this  indicates  the  need  of  individuals 
having  their  deficiencies  made  up  by  others,  like  the  collective  members 
of  one  body;  to  the  soundness  of  the  body  belongs  the  conjoined  organ- 
ism of  all  the  charisms  which  the  divine  life  of  Christianity  appropriates 
from  the  collective  life  of  humanity. 

That  by  which  the  developed  natural  endowment  becomes  a  charism, 
and  which  is  common  to  all,  is  always  something  elevated  above  the 
common  course  of  nature,  something  divine.  But  the  forms  of  manifes- 
tation in  which  this  higher  principle  exhibited  itself  were  different,  accord- 
ing as  they  were  the  result  of  an  original  creative  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  entering  into  and  appropriating  the  course  of  nature,  as  they  were 
something  immediately  toorked,  (though  even  here  a  hidden  connexion 
might  exist  between  the  natural  peculiarities  of  the  individual  and  such  a 
special  acting  of  the  Holy  Spirit) — the  charisms  which  in  the  New  Tes 
tament,  are  called  "powers,  signs,  wonders,"  dvvdueic,  crquela,  repara 
or,  according  as  they  were  the  result  of  the  development  of  natural  talents 
under  the  animating  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  first  kind  of 
charisms  belongs  more  to  the  peculiar  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
apostolic  age,  that  peculiarly  creative  epoch  of  Christianity  on  its  first 
appearance  in  the  world ;  the  second  kind  belongs  to  the  operation  of 

God,  both  in  general  and  individually,  see  the  admirable  remarks  in  Nitszch's  Observation* 
ad  Theologian*  practicam  felicius  excolendam.     Bonn,  1831,  p.  21. 


138  CONSTITUTION    OF  THE   CHURCH. 

the  Holy  Spirit  through  all  succeeding  ages  of  tht  church,  by  which 
human  nature,  in  its  essential  qualities  and  its  whole  course  of  develop- 
ment, will  be  progressively  penetrated  and  transformed.  It  is  true, 
therefore,  that  these  two  forms  of  charism,  as  they  were  manifested  in 
the  apostolic  church,  are  clearly  distinguishable  ;  the  gift,  indeed,  by 
which  effects  were  produced  in  the  visible  world,  which  could  not  pro- 
ceed from  the  existing  powers  and  laws  of  nature,  the  gift  of  dvvdfieig, 
and  one  still  more  definite,  that  of  curing  diseases,  the  x<^Pialxa  lapdrbiv, 
are  called  special  gifts  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  9,  10.  But  these  gifts  are  only  special 
as  coordinate  with  others  ;  we  find  no  division  of  gifts  into  two  classes, 
extraordinary  and  ordinary,  supernatural  and  natural ;  for  we  contem- 
plate the  apostolic  church  from  the  right  point  of  view,  only  when  we 
consider  the  essential  in  all  these  gifts  to  be  the  supernatural  principle, 
the  divine  element  of  life  itself.  Just  as  all  Christian  truths,  so  far  as 
they  belong  to  the  sphere  of  the  new  higher  life  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
alone  can  disclose,  are  called  "  Mysteries." 

The  charisms  which  appeared  in  the  apostolic  church,  may  be  most 
naturally  divided  into  such  as  relate  to  the  furtherance  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  or  the  edification  of  the  church,  by  the  word,  and  such  as  relate 
to  the  furtherance  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  other  kinds  of  outward* 
agency.  As  to  the  first  class,  a  distinction  may  be  made,  founded  on  the 
varying  relation  which  the  self-activity, developed  in  the  several  powers 
of  the  soul  and  their  performances,  bore  to  the  in  working  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  varying  as  the  immediate  force  of  inspiration  predominated  in  the 
higher  self-consciousness  (the  vovg  or  Trvevfia),  and  the  lower  self-con- 
sciousness (thei^y^T/),  the  medium  of  the  soul's  intercourse  with  the  out- 
ward woi'ld,  was  repressed  ;  or  as  the  communications  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  were  received  under  the  harmonious  operation  of  all  the  powers 
of  the  soul,  and  were  developed  and  employed  by  the  cooperating  sober 
exercise  of  the  understanding.! 

Hence  the  gradations  in  the  charisms  of  which  we  have  already  spoken, 
p.  35,  the  charism  of  "  speaking  with  tongues,"  of  "  prophesying,"  and  of 
"  teaching."  Men  who  were  prepared  by  the  early  cultivation  of  the  intel- 
lect, and  the  aptitude  for  mental  communication,  knew  how  to  develop  and 
communicate  in  logical  consecutiveness  what  the  illumination  of  the  Di- 
vine Spirit  revealed  to  their  higher  self-consciousness.  The  diddonaXoi 
are  therefore  teachers  possessed  of  Christian  knowledge  (yvwtnc)  gained 
by  means  of  a  self-activity  animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  develop- 
ment and  elaboration  of  truth  discerned  in  the  divine  light.  The  prophet, 
on  the  contrary,  spoke  as  he  was  carried  away  by  the  power  of  inspira- 

*  Compare  1  Pet.  iv.  11. 

f  We  can  here  make  use  of  what  Synesius  in  his  Dion  says  of  the  relation  of  the 
Bacchic  frenzy,  ^ak\e  la— of  the  "mad  leap,"  akfia  /iaviKov,  of  the  "possession  by  a  god," 
deoQupTjTw— to  the  completeness  of  the  "  moderate  and  controlled  power,"  fieai]  koI  emora 
tiktj  dvvauic. 


USAGES   OF  THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  139 

lion,  suddenly,  by  an  instantaneous  elevation  of  his  higher  self-conscious- 
ness, according  to  a  light  that  then  gleamed  upon  him,  an  aTTOKaXvifji^. 
The  prophet  may  be  distinguished  from  the  teacher  in  reference  to 
his  mental  peculiarity  and  structure,  by  the  predominance,  in  general,  of 
the  feelings  and  intuitive  perceptions  over  the  activity  of  the  understand- 
ing. Yet  the  two  charisms  were  not  always  found  separate  and  in  dif- 
ferent persons.  The  teacher  in  many  a  moment  of  inspiration  might 
become  a  prophet.  The  prophet  might  pronounce,  under  the  influence 
of  inspiration,  some  impressive  address,  to  awaken,  to  admonish,  to 
warn,  or  to  console  the  assembled  believers  ;  or  make  appeals  to  those 
who  were  not  yet  decided  in  the  faith,  to  startle  their  consciences  and 
thus  open  their  hearts  for  the  instructions  of  the  teacher.  It  is  evi- 
dent what  influence  the  power  of  inspired  discourse,  operating  on  the 
heart,  must  have  had  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel  during  this  period. 
Persons  who  wished  only  for  once  to  inform  themselves  respecting  what  oc- 
curred in  the  Christian  assemblies,  or  to  become  acquainted  with  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  of  whose  divine  origin  they  were  as  yet  by  no  means  con- 
vinced, sometimes  came  into  the  assemblies  of  the  Church.*  On  these  occa- 

*  The  aiuoToc,  1  Cor.  xiv.  24,  means  a  person  not  yet  a  believer,  but  yet  not  unsuscep- 
tible of  faith,  the  infidelis  negative.  Such  a  one  might  be  awakened  to  believe  by  "  prophe- 
sying," izpoipTjTeia.  The  utuotoc,  1  Cor.  xiv.  22,  is  an  obstinate  unbeliever,  wholly  unsus- 
ceptible of  faith,  and  hence  utterly  unsusceptible  of  the  influence  of  the  Trpo<pnTeia,  an  ivfi- 
delis  privative.  For  such  persons  there  could  be  no  awakening,  but  only  condemnatory 
"signs,"  crj/iEia.  I  am  not  induced  by  what  Meyer  has  said,  in  his  Commentary  on  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  to  give  up  this  interpretation.  The  connexion  makes  it 
absolutely  necessary,  to  give  a  different  meaning  to  untp-oc  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  23  and  24,  from 
that  given  to  it  in  v.  22,  and  the  collocation  of  IdiiJTai  and  uTriaroi  confirms  this  explana- 
tion. The  two  words  are  associated  as  designations  of  related  states,  or  of  the  same  state 
in  different  relations.  The  iSiurac  were  those  who  knew  only  a  little  of  Christianity,  the 
u-riaroc  those  who  had  not  yet  attained  to  faith,  and  as  not  believing,  were  akin  to  the 
class  mentioned  in  v.  22,  but  distinguished  from  them  by  the  direction  of  their  disposition, 
and  its  relation  to  believing,  inasmuch  as  they  were  not  in  the  position  of  decided  enmity 
to  Christianity.  The  fact  of  their  attending  Christian  assemblies,  bore  evidence  of  their 
seeking  after  truth,  and  of  at  least  a  dawning  susceptibility.  A  person  of  this-  class 
comes  to  the  Christian  assemblies  to  learn,  whether  it  be  really  a  matter  worth  attending 
to,  "moved  to  inquire  what  there  is  in  the  matter,"  acccnsus  inquirere  quid  sit  in  causa, 
as  Tertullian  says.  The  train  of  thought  is  as  follows :  v.  21,  God  speaks  by  people  using 
a  strange  language  (the  revelation  of  his  judgment)  to  the  Jews,  who  would  not  listen  to 
the  prophets  speaking  to  them  in  their  own  language ;  v.  22,  thus  the  unintelligible 
tongues  are  for  signs  (signs  of  merited  divine  judgments,  condemnatory  signs)  not  for  be- 
lievers, (which  idea  is  amplified  in  verses  23,  24,  that  it  may  be  applied  also  to  those  who 
are  susceptible  of  feith,  whose  minds  are  somewhat  moved  to  believe,)  but  for  unbelievers 
(by  which  is  indicated  a  posi*,ive  opposition  to  faith — the  position  of  those  who  have  ob- 
stinately rejected  the  opportunities  of  attaining  faith).  But  prophecy  is  not  for  the  unbe- 
lieving (in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of  their  hearts),  but  for  believers.  Of  course, 
Paul  does  not  mean  to  say  here  that  prophecy  is  designed  only  for  believers,  and  not  also 
for  unbelievers,  so  far  as  these  include  such  as  have  only  not  yet  attained  to  faith  ;  for  it 
is  clear  that  prophecy  was  especially  fitted  to  arouse  and  alarm  those  who,  though  not 
yet  believing,  were  possessed  of  susceptible  minds  ;  to  excite  in  them  a  sense  of  sin,  and 


140  CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

pjons,  Christian  men  came  forward  who  testified  with  overpowering  energy, 
of  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  and  of  the  universal  need  of  redemption ; 
and;  from  their  own  religious  and  moral  consciousness,  appealed  to  that 
of  others,  as  if  they  could  read  it.  The  heathen  felt  his  conscience 
struck,  his  heart  was  laid  open,  and  he  was  forced  to  acknowledge,  what 
hitherto  he  had  not  been  willing  to  believe,  that  the  power  of  God  was 
with  this  doctrine,  and  dwelt  among  these  men ;   1  Cor.  xiv.  25. 

If  the  connected  addresses  of  the  "  teacher"  diddonaXog,  tended  to 
lead  those  further  into  a  knowledge  of  the  gospel  who  had  already  at- 
tained to  faith,  or  to  develop  in  their  minds  the  clear  understanding  of  what 
they  had  received  by  faith  ;  "prophesying"  irpofynTda,  served  rather 
to  awaken  those  to  faith  who  were  not  yet  believers,  or  to  animate  and 
strengthen  those  who  had  attained  to  faith,  to  quicken  afresh  the  life  of 
faith.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  "speaking  with  tongues"  yXcoaaacg 
XaXeiv,  the  elevated  consciousness  of  God  alone  prevailed,  while  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  external  world  vanished.  To  a  person  in  exercise  of 
this  gift,  the  medium  of  communication  between  the  external  world  and 
his  deeply  moved  soul,  was  altogether  wanting.  What  he  uttered  in 
this  state  when  carried  away  by  his  feelings  and  intuitions,  was  not  a 
connected  address  like  that  of  a  diddoicaXog,  nor  was  it  an  exhortation 
suited  to  the  circumstances  of  other  persons  (napdnXnGig),  like  that  of 
the  prophets ;  but  without  being  capable  of  taking  notice  of  the  mental 
state  and  necessities  of  others,  he  was  occupied  solely  with  the  relation 
of  his  own  heart  to  God.  His  soul  was  absorbed  in  devotion  and  adora- 
tion. Hence  prayer,  singing  the  praises  of  God,  testifying  of  the  mighty 
acts  of  God,  were  suited  to  this  state.*     Such  a  person  prayed  in  the 

of  the  need  of  redemption,  and  to  lead  them  to  a  recognition  of  the  divine  power  of  the 
gospel .  It  follows,  therefore,  of  itself,  that  the  term  "  believer"  here  could  not  have  been  set 
in  general  antithesis  to  all  who  had  not  yet  attained  to  faith,  but  in  more  restricted  opposi- 
tion to  decided  unbelievers — to  such  as  would  not  believe.  This  general  position,  that  not 
the  gift  of  unintelligible  tongues,  but  prophecy  speaking  intelligibly  to  them,  was  designed 
for  believers,  the  apostle  lays  down  in  v.  23,  as  an  inference  from  what  he  had  said  before. 
But  instead  of  taking  an  example  from  those  who  already  belonged  to  the  church  as  de- 
cided believers,  he  takes  an  example  from  those  who  were  only  in  their  progress  towards 
believing ;  since  in  these  the  truth  of  what  he  had  asserted  was  more  strikingly  evident, 
showing  how  many  such  persons  might  be  won  by  prophecy,  and  on  the  contrary,  how 
injuriously  the  sight  of  an  assembly  in  which  they  heard  nothing  but  ecstatic,  unintelligible 
discourses  must  operate  upon  them :  in  the  latter  case,  they  would  feel  themselves  com- 
pelled to  suppose  that  there  was  nothing  in  Christianity  but  delusion  and  fanaticism.  But 
if  the  same  unbelievers  were  intended  in  verse  23  as  in  verse  22,  then  for  such  also  the 
discourses  of  the  prophets  would  be  nothing  that  could  profit  them,  since  there  was  no 
point  of  connexion  in  their  dispositions.  To  them  also,  what  they  heard  spoken  by  the 
prophets  would  appear  nothing  but  fanaticism.  It  would  be  a  punishment  merited  by 
them,  to  be  addressed  in  unintelligible  language.  Since  they  would  not  understand — they 
sHiould  not  understand. 

*  As  various  kinds  of  religious  acts  might  proceed  from  this  state  of  mind,  (as  for  in- 
stance, praying  and  singing  with  the  Spirit,)  the  plural  tongues,  and  the  phrase  "  kind  of 
tongues,"  are  used. 


USAGES    OP   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  141 

Spirit ;  the  higher  life  of  the  mind  and  heart  predominated,  but  the  intel- 
ligent development  was  wanting.*  Since  he  formed  a  peculiar  language 
for  himself,  from  his  own  individual  feelings  and  intuitions,  he  was 
deficient  in  the  ability  to  express  himself  so  as  to  be  understood  by  the 
majority.  Had  the  apostle  Paul  held  the  "  speaking  with  tongues"  to  be 
something  quite  fanatical  and  morbid,  neither  advantageous  for  the  Chris- 
tian life  of  the  individual  nor  for  the  furtherance  of  the  Christian  life  in 
others,  he  certainly  (liberally  as  he  always  acknowledged  what  was  good 
in  the  churches  ta  whom  he  wrote,  before  he  blamed  what  was  evil) 
would  never  have  allowed  himself  to  designate  by  the  name  of  a  char- 
ism,  an  imperfection  in  the  Christian  life,  and  never  could  he,  in  this  case, 
have  said  of  himself  that  he  thanked  God  that  he  spake  in  more  tongues 
than  all  of  them.  On  the  contrary,  from  the  view  here  developed  of  this 
charism,  it  is  evident  that,  in  this  extraordinary  elevation  of  mind,  he 
recognised  an  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  a  special  gift  of  grace ;  and 
there  is  also  an  internal  probability  that  that  apostle,  who  rose  to  the 

*  At  all  events  it  is  certain  that  in  1  Cor.  si  v.  14,  praying  and  singing  with  the 
Spirit,  nvev/uan  irpooevxeo-Qai,  ■tyuk'kELv,  is  equally  with  "  speaking  with  a  tongue,"  y?.6aay 
laleiv,  opposed  to  "  speaking  in,  or  with  the  understanding,"  r<p  vol  or  Sia  tov  vobg  Xalilv, 
and  it  is  certain  that  the  latter  means — to  deliver  something  through  the  medium  of  think- 
ing, in  a  form  proceeding  from  a  sound  consciousness.  But  it  may  be  disputed — which, 
however,  decides  nothing  respecting  the  subject  as  a  whole — whether  ■nvtv\ia  in  this  whole 
section  is  a  designation  of  the  ecstatic  state,  as  one  in  which  the  excitation  produced  by 
the  Divine  Spirit,  the  immediate  inspiration  predominates,  and  the  human  self-activity  is 
repressed ;  or  whether  it  denotes  also  a  peculiar  internal  power  of  human  nature,  the 
power  of  higher  intuition,  which  in  such  states  alone  is  developed  and  active.  Verses  15 
and  16  would  favor  and  justify  no  other  interpretation  than  the  former.  But  in  verse  14, 
though  this  interpretation  is  not  impossible,  there  are  some  difficulties;  for  then  by  the 
ixvEvfia  here  would  have  to  be  understood  the  inspiration  effected  by  the  Spirit,  as  something 
abiding  in  the  soul,  and  completely  blended  with  the  subjective.  Instead  of  saying,  I 
pray  in  inspiration,  Paul  would  say,  My  spirit  (that  in  me  which  is  one  with  the  Spirit 
acting  within  me)  prays.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  interpretation  has  something  harsh, 
which  is  not  found,  if,  according  to  the  second,  we  understand  by  irvev/ia  that  highest 
power  of  the  soul,  which  in  those  highest  moments  of  the  inner  life  is  active  as  the  organ 
for  the  influences  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  It  cannot  at  least  be  decisive  against  this  interpre- 
tation, that  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  generally  designates  the  higher  spiritual 
nature  of  man  by  the  term  vovg  •  for  this  need  not  prevent  his  applying  the  same  name  to 
a  more  limited  idea  in  another  connexion  ;  the  vov$  =—  to  voovv,  the  discursive  faculty  of 
thought,  in  distinction  from  the  higher  faculty  of  intuition,  which,  surrendering  itself  to 
the  Divine  Spirit,  is  more  receptive.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  and  assists  in  forming  a  right 
judgment  of  the  various  charisms  in  relation  to  Christianity,  that  in  the  sense  assigned  to 
the  yAwacratc  lalelv,  we  may  find  something  analogous  in  the  "frenzy,"  fiavia,  the  "in- 
spiration," hdovoiaofxbc,  of  the  heathen  "  diviner,"  /lavrig-,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  fiidaana- 
lia  is  presented  a  characteristic  of  Christianity,  the  religion  of  sober-mindedness ;  as 
Christianity  is  the  religion  of  freedom  of  mental  self-activity,  (in  opposition  to  mere  pas- 
sivity,) and  of  harmonious  mental  development.  Hence,  also,  the  danger  that — when  a 
one-sided  over-valuation  of  the  yXuaoats  laleiv  gained  ground,  and  there  was-  a  defect  in 
Christian  watchfulness  and  sobriety,  as  in  heathenism — the  excitement  of  mere  natural 
feeling  might  injuriously  mingle  itself  with  the  movements  of  the  divine  life,  as  was  the 
case  in  Montanism.  in  which  we  may  observe  appearances  akin  to  somnambulism. 


142  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

highest  point  of  the  interior  Christian  life,  who  could  depose  to  having 
received  so  many  "  visions,"  dnraoiai,  and  "  revelations  of  the  Lord," 
duroKaXvipeig  nvptov,  who  had  heard  things  unutterable  in  any  tongue  of 
men — had  often  been  in  circumstances  corresponding  to  the  yX6aaaig 
XaXelv.  But  it  was  consonant  with  that  wisdom  which  always  took  ac- 
count of  the  interests  of  all  classes  in  the  church,  that  he — although  he 
recognised  the  value  of  these  temporary  elevations  for  the  whole  of  the 
Christian  life,  by  which  it  was  enabled  to  take  a  wider  range — left  the 
manifestations  of  such  moments  rather  to  the  private  devotions  of  each 
individual,  and  banished  them  from  meetings  for  general  edification  ;  that 
he  Valued  more  highly  those  spiritual  gifts,  which  gave  scope  for  the 
harmonious  cooperation  of  all  the  powers  of  the  soul,  and  contributed  in 
the  spirit  of  love  to  the  general  edification ;  and  that  he  dreaded  the 
danger  of  self-deception  and  fanaticism,  where  the  extraordinary  mani- 
festations of  the  Christian  life  were  overvalued,  and  where  that  which 
only  had  worth  when  it  arose  unsought  from  the  interior  development 
of  life,  became  an  object  of  anxious  pursuit  to  many  who  were  thus 
brought  into  a  state  of  morbid  excitement.  Hence  he  wished,  that  in 
those  highest  moments  of  inspiration  whicli  attended  the  speaking  with 
tongues,  each  one  would  pour  out  his  heart  alone  before  God  ;  but  that 
in  the  assemblies  of  the  church  these  manifestations  of  devotion,  unin- 
telligible to  the  majority,  might  be  repressed,  or  only  be  exhibited 
when  what  was  thus  spoken  could  be  translated  into  a  language  intelligi- 
ble to  all. 

Among  these  charisms,  we  have  further  to  distinguish  the  gift  of  a 
divinely  animated  creative  power  of  the  religious  intuition,  and  the  gift 
which  enabled  a  person  to  explain  or  to  pass  judgment  upon  what  others 
communicated  in  the  state  of  higher  inspiration — the  faculty,  animated 
by  the  Divine  Spirit,  of  interpreting  or  of  judging,  the  "  interpretation  of 
tongues,"  ipfirjveia  yXuooojv,  and  the  "  trying  of  spirits,"  diaKpiaig  nvev- 
[idr<j)v.  The  Christian  life  was  permitted  freely  to  develop  and  express 
itself  in  the  church.  Whoever  felt  an  inward  impulse,  might  speak  in 
the  Christian  assemblies ;  but  sound  discretion  was  to  accompany  inspi- 
ration, and  even  be  considered  as  a  mark  of  its  genuineness.  No  one  was 
to  wish  to  be  the  sole  speaker ;  or  to  interrupt  others  in  speaking ; 
1  Cor.  xiv.  30,  31.  If  Paul  considered  such  injunctions  to  be  necessary,  it 
is  apparent  that  he  by  no  means  recognised  in  the  prophets  of  the  church 
such  pure  organs  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  as  that  the  divine  and  the  human 
might  not  easily  be  mixed  in  them.  On  the  contrary,  the  churches  were 
to  be  guarded  against  the  excesses  of  suoh  a  mixture  and  the  delusions 
which  abound  when  human  impurity  is  looked  upon  as  a  suggestion  of 
the  Divine  Spirit, — by  exercising  a  trial  of  spirits,  for  which  a  special 
gift  was  granted  to  individuals.  As  for  the  SiddoicaXog,  in  whom  the  re- 
flective activity  of  the  understanding  predominated,  the  gift  of  trying 
spirits  was  not  required  so  much  to  accompany  his  addresses  ;  for  since 
In  him  the  critical  power  was  developed  and  active,  and  he  was  habitu- 


USAGES   OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  143 

ated  to  discuss  Christian  truths  with  a  sober  judgment,  he  was  able  to 
judge  himself.  But  the  less  a  prophet  in  the  moments  of  inspiration  was 
himself  able  to  observe,  to  examine,  and  to  judge,  the  greater  was  the 
danger  of  confounding  the  divine  and  the  human,  and  the  more  neces- 
sary was  it,  to  prevent  this,  for  others  to  apply  a  scrutiny. 

On  this  account,  it  was  necessary  that  the  operations  of  the  pro- 
phetical gift  should  be  attended  by  an  extraordinary  endowment,  in  cer- 
tain persons,  of  trying  the  spirits,  a  critical  power  animated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  design  of  this  gift  was  certainly  not  merely  nor  specially  to 
decide  who  was  a  prophet  and  who  was  not ;  but  also  chiefly  for  the 
purpose  of  distinguishing  in  the  addresses  of  those  who  stood  up  as  in- 
spired speakers  in  the  Christian  assemblies,  between  what  proceeded 
from  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  what  did  not  proceed  from  that  source;  so 
Paul,  on  this  point,  recommended  the  church  to  try  every  thing  com- 
municated by  the  prophets,  and  required  them  to  separate  the  good  from 
the  bad  ;  1  Thess.  v.  21.  And  as  the  prophets  did  not  pretend  to  be  in- 
fallible, but  were  conscious  of  their  liability  to  error,  they  submitted 
themselves  to  the  judgment  of  the  church,  or  of  their  organs  appointed 
for  the  purpose,  and  thus  were  preserved  from  the  self-delusion  of  pride, 
that  fruitful  source  of  fanatical  error.  We  see  how  already  are  fore- 
shadowed in  these  peculiar  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit  who  animated 
the  church  in  these  original  charisms,  the  A^arious  activities  which  would 
afterwards  be  animated  by  Christianity,  and  which  belong  to  the  perfect 
development  of  the  reason,  such  as  the  exposition  of  what  is  written  or 
spoken  by  others,  and  criticism. 

In  the  charism  of  "  teaching  "  itself,  we  find  again  a  difference  in  re- 
ference to  the  "  wrord  of  knowledge,"  Xoyog  yvc5erewc,and  the  "  word  of 
wisdom,"  Aoyoc  ocxpiag.  It  is  evident,  from  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  mentioned  separately  (1  Cor.  xii.  8),  that  there  is  a  certain  distinction 
between  them,  but  it  is  very  difficult  to  ascertain  what  it  is.  Elsewhere 
the  word  yv&oig  denotes  the  theoretical  in  distinction  from  the  practical, 
and  relates  to  the  intellectual  development  of  Christian  truth.  Thus  the 
Corinthians  boasted  of  their  gnosis,  because  they  had  obtained  many 
deductions  from  Christian  truth  which  had  not  yet  become  clear  to  others 
who  were  too  closely  confined  to  their  former  point  of  view.  And  Paul 
does  not  deny  that  they  were  before  many  in  point  of  knowledge  ;  only 
he  missed  in  them  that  humility  and  love,  without  which  all  knowledge 
in  reference  to  divine  things  is  worthless.  He  joins  together  in  1  Cor.  xiii. 
2,  "  understanding  all  mysteries  and  having  all  knowledge."  But  the 
idea  of  "  wisdom,"  oo<pia,  also  might  seem  to  relate  to  the  intellectual. 
Aristotle  makes  the  distinction  between  oo<pia  and  cppovrjaig,  that  the 
former  refers  to  the  eternal  and  divine,  but  the  latter  to  the  useful  for 
man.  But  the  contrast  here  made  by  that  great  teacher,  closely  depends, 
with  his  whole  mode  of  contemplation,  on  the  relation  of  the  divine  to 
the  human,  and  on  the  boundaries  of  morals.  In  common  language, 
certainly  the  distinction  between  the  ideas  of  ao(j>bg  and  (ppovi^iog  often 


144  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

vanishes,  and  the  former  term  is  used  to  designate  any  knowledge  or  skih 
in  the  department  of  practice. 

In  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  Paul  distinguishes  by  the  name 
of  "  the  wisdom  of  the  perfect"  a  more  profound  development  of  Chris- 
tian truth,  by  means  of  which  it  is-  shown  that  what  natural  reason 
represents  as  foolishness,  contains  in  itself  inexhaustible  treasures  of  wis- 
dom. But  the  same  Paul  also  uses  the  word  ootpia  in  cases  which  relate 
altogether  to  the  practical,  and  where  it  corresponds  rather  to  prudence. 
Both  senses  meet  in  the  idea  of  Christian  wisdom,  of  which  we  shall 
speak  in  the  chapter  on  doctrine. ' 

By  reverting  to  the  peculiar  idea  of  wisdom,  and  endeavoring  to  in- 
vestigate what  Paul  designates  "  the  wisdom  of  the  perfect,"  may  we 
not  obtain  an  accommodation  between  the  theoretical  and  the  practical, 
by  which  ocxpia  is  distinguished  from  yv&oig  ?  The  idea  of  wisdom  be- 
speaks an  activity  of  the  mind  directed  toward  an  end,  and  hence  refers 
to  those  acts  by  which  the  ideas  originating  within  are  brought  forth 
into  outward  visibility.  As  now,  according  to  Paul,  the  highest  end  of 
creation  in  reference  to  this  world  can  be  attained  only  by  the  redemp- 
tion of  mankind,  so  the  Divine  wisdom  reveals  itself  especially  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  various  generations  of  men  are  brought  to  a  parti- 
cipation in  redemption,  in  the  manifold  steps  of  the  course  of  develop- 
ment, which  under  the  Divine  guidance  conducts  all  things  to  just  that 
end.  Rom.  xi.  33  ;  Eph.  hi.  10.  Thus  the  wisdom  of  the  perfect  has 
for  its  functions  and  objects,  to  produce  the  conviction,  that  in  the  rela- 
tion which  the  development  of  humanity  bears  to  the  appearance  of 
Christ,  and  to  the  redemption  accomplished  through  his  sufferings,  the 
Divine  wisdom  reveals  itself;  and  that  the  preaching,  therefore,  which 
appears  as  foolishness  to  those  who  are  without  the  pale  of  Christian- 
ity, gives  the  most  abundant  disclosures  of  the  Divine  wisdom,  as  in 
the  unveiling  of  that  hidden  design  of  redemption  all  the  treasures  of 
wisdom  are  contained.  With  this  idea,  what  is  represented  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  as  the  doctrine  of  perfection,  may  be  placed  in  connexion. 
And  thus  the  Xoyoc;  oo(piag  would  be  applied  to  a  special  department  of 
knowledge  as  distinguished  from  the  universality  of  the  gnosis.  But  if 
the  wisdom  that  guides  human  life  and  determines  human  action  is  to 
form  itself  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Divine  wisdom  ;  if  the  new  mode 
of  treating  all  the  relations  of  life  proceeds  from  that  which  "the  wisdom 
of  the  perfect"  teaches  us  to  recognise  as  the  central  point  of  all  history ; 
if  this  is  to  be  the  central  point  also  for  the  whole  moral  structure  of 
life ;  then,  therefore,  the  ethical  element  also,  the  more  practical,  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  more  theoretical  gnosis,  would  here  find  its  point  of 
connexion. 

Let  us  now  proceed  from  those  gifts  which  relate  to  the  ministry  of 
the  word,  to  that  class  which  relates  to  other  kinds  of  outward  activ- 
ity for  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Here  again  we 
must  distinguish  between  those  in  which,  as  in  "  teaching,"  a  peculiar 


USAGES    OF    THE   GENTILE    CHRISTIANS.  145 

capability  founded  in  human  nature,  and  developed  and  applied  accord- 
ing to  its  usual  laws,  was  rendered  effective,  under  the  influence  of  a  new 
divine  principle  of  life ;  and  those  in  which  the  natural  human  develop- 
ment was  repressed,  and  what  was  purely  divine  became  more  promi- 
nent, as  in  the  "  speaking  with  tongues"  and  "  prophesying."  To  the 
former  belong  the  gifts  of  church  government,  the  x^ptana  Kv/3epv^(Tecog 
or  tov  Trpoiordvai,  and  the  gifts  for  various  services,  which  were  required 
in  administering  the  concerns  of  the  church,  as  distributing  alms,  tending 
the  sick,  &c,  the  x^Pta!la  diatoviag  or  dvTtXrjipeog  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  28 ; 
Rom.  xii.  7.  To  the  second  division  belongs  especially  the  gift  of  work- 
ing miracles,  and  performing  cures.  The  charism  from  which  these  two 
modes  of  miraculous  operation  proceed,  considered  in  its  essential  nature, 
appears  to  be  "  faith,"  TTiorig  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  9  ;  xiii.  2  ;  Matt.  xvii.  20  ;  for 
the  term  nto-ig  in  this  connection  cannot  denote  Christian  faith  in  general, 
the  disposition  common  to  all  Christians  ;  but  must  necessarily  relate  to 
something  special.  For,  as  seems  to  appear  from  the  relation  of  ttIoth; 
to  these  two  modes  of  operation,  in  which  a  peculiar  power  of  the  will 
over  nature  manifests  itself;  and  as  is  confirmed  by  what  is  predicated 
of  Triors  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  2  :  "  If  I  had  faith  so  that  I  could  move  moun- 
tains," i.  e.  could  render  wrhat  appeared  impossible,  possible  by  the 
power  of  religious  conviction  working  on  the  Will, — the  term  mang  de- 
notes the  practical  powrer  of  the  will  animated  and  elevated  by  faith. 
But  with  this  variety  in  the  manifestations  of  the  charisms,  he  who  la- 
bored in  the  service  of  the  church  yet  affirmed  with  the  worker  of 
miracles,  that  he  was  conscious  that  everything  effected  by  him  was 
solely  by  the  power  of  God  granted  to  him  ;  1  Pet.  iv.  11. 

Although,  as  we  have  shown,  in  virtue  of  these  spiritual  gifts  imparted 
to  individuals,  according  to  their  various  peculiarities,  no  one  was  to  ex- 
ercise a  one-sided  influence  on  the  church,  but  rather  all  with  recipro- 
cal activity  were  to  cooperate  for  the  one  object,  under  the  influence  of 
one  head  animating  the  whole  in  all  its  manifold  members,  Eph.  iv.  16  ; 
yet  it  by  no  means  follows  that  all  guidance*  of  the  church  by  human  in- 

*  We  cannot,  in  this  place,  allow  the  view  brought  forward  by  Baur,  in  his  treatise  on 
the  "  Pastoralbriefe,"  p.  79,  to  pass  unnoticed,  that,  in  the  genuine  Pauline  Epistles,  no 
trace  can  be  found  of  distinct  employments  and  offices  for  the  guidance  and  government 
of  the  church.  The  passage  in  Rom.  xii.,  in  which  the  distinctions  in  the  various  charisms 
are  pointed  out,  certainly  shows  how  fluctuating  everything  was  at  that  time,  and  how 
little  idea  can  be  formed  from  those  charisms  as -to  the  meaning  of  the  later  church-ofEces 
corresponding  to  them.  It  is  certainly  striking  to  notice  how  Paul,  in  the  8th  and  9th 
verses  of  that  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  passes  from  the  charisms  which  seem 
to  relate  to  particular  offices,  to  the  mention  of  Christian  virtues  which  concerned  every 
believer;  at  the  end  of  verse  8,  the  "showing  mercy,"  h?.euv,  forms  the  point  of  transition, 
and  even  before  that,  "  giving,"  fieradido be,  does  not  necessarily  relate  to  any  official  duty. 
Thus  it  might  be  concluded  that  the  original  constitution  of  the  churches  among  Gentilo 
Christians,  in  the  apostolic  age,  was  entirely  democratic,  and  also  that  this  was  one  of  the 
distinguishing  marks  between  the  churches  of  Gentile  and  those  of  Jewish  origin.  The 
matter  would  then  have  to  be  looked  at  thus;    All  the  affairs  of  the  churches  were 

10 


146  CONSTITUTION    OF    THE    CHUBCH. 

strumentality  was  e  .eluded  ;  but  only  that  these  specially  guiding  instru 
ments  exercised  no  exclusive  authority,  did  not  separate  themselves  from 
connexion  with  the  whole  living  organization  formed  by  a  free  recipro- 
cal action  of  the  individual  members,  nor  dared  to  violate  their  relation 
to  the  other  members,  as  equally  serving  the  same  Head  aud  the  same 
body. 

still  transacted  in  an  entirely  public  manner,  so  that  every  deliberative  meeting  of  the 
church  resembled  a  strictly  popular  assembly.  But  it  happened  of  course  that  although 
no  definite  offices  were  instituted,  to  which  certain  employments  were  exclusively  attached, 
yet  each  one  occupied  himself  with  those  matters  for  which  he  possessed  a  peculiar  char- 
ism  ;  those  who  had  the  gift  of  teaching,  generally  attended  to  teaching, — those  who  pos- 
sessed the  gift  of  church  government,  occupied  themselves  with  the  duties  pertaining  to  it. 
Thus,  in  every  meeting  of  the  church,  there  would  be  of  course,  a  division  among  its  mem- 
bers of  the  various  business,  according  to  the  peculiar  charisms  of  individuals,  without  the 
institution,  however,  of  any  definite,  church-offices.  In  favor  of  this  view,  it  might  further 
be  alleged,  that,  when  Paul  (I  Cor.  vi.)  speaks  of  a  matter  belonging  to  church  govern- 
ment, the  settling  of  litigations,  he  does  not  recommend  their  committing  this  business  to 
persons  who  held  a  distinct  office  of  governing,  whose  concern  in  that  case  it  would  have 
been;  but  speaks  of  the  church  as  a  body,  before  whose  tribunal  such  disputes  ought  to 
be  brought  to  a  decision.  "Is  there  not  one  wise  man  among  you,"  he  asked,  "  who  can 
settle  such  matters  ?"  Therefore  such  wise  persons,  or  in  other  words,  those  who  had  the 
gift  of  church  government,  were  to  be  taken  from  the  midst  of  the  church  itself,  to  under- 
take the  settlement  of  these  disputes  by  means  of  their  peculiar  charism ;  no  distinct  church 
office  could  have  been  here  referred  to.  But  this  opinion,  which  might  be  formed 
from  such  passages,  though  not  cecessarily  founded  upon  them,  is  decidedly  opposed  by 
others.  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  xvi.,  says,  that  the  family  of  Stephanas,  as  the  first  Christian 
family  in  Achaia,  devoted  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  Christian  church,  i.  e.  its  mem- 
bers declared  themselves  ready  to  undertake  church  offices;  consequently,  we  may  sup- 
pose that,  at  the  founding  of  the  church,  such  offices  were  instituted.  That  this  is  his 
meaning,  is  confirmed  by  the  16th  verse,  where  Paul  exhorts  the  church  to  obey  such 
ministers,  (therefore  rulers  of  tho  church),  and  all  their  fellow-laborers. 

Further  in  1  Thess.  v.  12,  he  speaks  of  those  who  labored  for  the  church,  presided  over 
it,  and  admonished  it.  Love  to  them  as  overseers  on  account  of  their  laborious  calling 
is  particularly  enjoined ;  and  with  this  is  connected  the  exhortation  to  peace  with  one 
another,  since  division  in  the  church  would  especially  injure  their  proper  relation  to 
these  overseers  of  the  church,  and  the  want  of  becoming  love  and  reverence  towards  them 
would  also  injuriously  operate  against  the  unity  of  the  church.  Also,  when  Paul,  in  Rom. 
xvi.  1  mentions  a  deaconess,  it  is  certainly  presupposed  that  there  were  deacons  and  pres- 
bvters  in  the  church.  And  when,  in  Eph.  iv.  11,  he  names  pastors  and  teachers  next  to 
apostles  and  prophets,  and  indeed  after  the  mention  of  charisms  as  the  heavenly  gifts  be- 
stowed by  Christ,  we  must  infer  that,  among  these  pastors  and  teachers,  there  were  those 
who  exercised  distinct  offices,  and  that,  in  general,  certain  offices  corresponded  to  certain 
charisms.  "We  intentionally  pass  over  Phil!,,,  i.  1,  a  passage  which  can  be  decisive  only  for 
those  who,  like  myself,  are  convinced  of  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle.  Also,  when  Luke, 
Acts  xiv.  23,  narrates  that  Paul,  on  his  first  missionary  journey,  appointed  presbyters  in  the 
new  churches,  this  is,  in  my  opinion,  certain  historical  evidence,  since  I  must  consider  the 
suspicion  that  in  this  work  a  later  ecclesiastical  point  of  view  has  been  transferred  to 
earlier  and  differently  formed  church-relations,  as  absolutely  without  foundation.  But  from 
the  existing  relations  of  the  churches  at  that  time,  when  there  was  not  in  the  same  sense 
as  in  later  times  a  clergy  distinguished  from  the  laity,  it  is  evident,  how,  in  Rom.  xii.  7, 
along  with  the  charisms  connected  with  specific  offices,  those  might  be  named  which  were 


USAGES    OF   THE    GENTILE    CHRISTIANS.  147 

There  was  indeed  for  this  guidance  a  peculiar  talent  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  "gift  of  government,"  (xdpia/j,a  KvPepvrjoeGjg.)  It  was  this 
that  fitted  a  person  for  the  office  of  presiding  over  the  church.  The  name 
of  presbyter,  by  which,  as  we  have  before  remarked,  this  office  was  first 
distinguished,  was  transferred  from  the  Jewish  synagogue  to  the  Chris- 
tian church.  But  when  the  church  extended  itself  further  among  Hel- 
lenic Gentiles,  with  this  name  borrowed  from  the  civil  and  religious  con- 
stitution of  the  Jews  another  was  joined,  which  was  more  allied  to  the 
designations  of  social  relations  among  the  Greeks,  and  adapted  to  point 
out  the  official  duties  connected  with  the  dignity  of  presbyters.*  The 
name  emcuo-noi  denoted  overseers  over  the  whole  of  the  church  and  its 
collective  concerns ;  as  in  Attica  those  who  were  commissioned  to 
organize  the  states  dependent  on  Athens,  received  the  title  of  enloKoiroi,\ 
ind  as  in  general  it  appears  to  have  been  a  frequent  one  for  denoting  a 
guiding  oversight  in  the  public  administration.^  Since,  then,  the  name 
"  overseer  or  bishop,"  (eniaKonog)  was  no  other  than  a  transference  of 
an  original  Jewish  and  Hellenistic  designation  of  office,  adapted  to  the 
social  relations  of  the  Gentiles  ;  it  follows  that  originally  both  names 
related  entirely  to  the  same  office,  and  hence  both  names  are  frequently 
interchanged  as  perfectly  synonymous.  Thus  Paul  addresses  the  assem- 
bled presbyters  of  the  Ephesian  church,  whom  he  had  sent  for,  as  emoKo- 
7rovc;§  so  likewise  in   1  Tim.  iii.  1,  the  office  of  the  presbyters  is  called 

not  so  connected ;  and  how  Paul  could  pass  on  from  particular  charisms  to  general  Chris 
tian  virtues.  Attention  to  the  poor  and  sick,  which  belonged  to  the  special  business  of 
deacons,  was  yet  something  in  which  others  could  be  employed,  besides  those  on  whom  it 
officially  devolved.     See  Rothe,  in  the  work  before  quoted,  p.  189. 

*  The  apostle  Peter,  in  his  first  Epistle  (v.  1,  2),  certainly  distinguishes  this  dignity  by 
the  name  "  elders,"  (npea(3vTepoi.,)  but  the  duties  connected  with  it,  by  the  term  "to  over- 
see,'^ "to  feed,"  (kmjKo-KEiv=:Troifiaiveiv.) 

\  Otherwise  called  "  governors,"  upjioarai.  Schol.  Arisloph.  Av.  (1023) :  ol  nap' 
kdrjvaiuv  elg  T<2f  vktjk6ov(  no"kei<;  eniGKeipaadai  ru  nap'  tKaaroig  ne/ino/xevoi,  'Enioiconoi 
<at  <j>v?LaKes  iKa^ovvro,  ov<;  ol  Aukuvec  'Ap/ioarug  IXeyov.  (Those  sent  by  the  Athenians 
to  subject  cities,  to  inspect  affairs  among  them,  were  called  overseers  and  protectors,  whom 
the  Laconians  called  Governors.) 

\  Cic.  ad  Atticum,  vii.  Ep.  11.  Vult  me  Pompeius  esse,  quem  tota  hsec  Campana  et 
maritima  ora  habeat  eniononov,  ad  quem  delectus  et  summa  negotii  referatur.  (Pompey 
wishes  me  to  be  the  overseer  (tnianonov),  whom  all  this  Campana  and  these  maritime 
borders  have,  to  whom  select  and  important  matters  may  be  referred.)  In  a  fragment  of 
a  work  by  Arcadius  Charisius  de  Muneribus  civilibus,  Episcopi  qui  prajsunt  pani  et  ceteris 
venalibus  rebus,  qua?  civitatum  populis  ad  quotidianum  victum  usui  sunt.  (Overseers 
who  have  charge  of  the  bread  and  other  things  for  sale,  which  are  used  by  the  people  of 
the  cities  for  daily  food.)     Digest,  lib.  iv.  tit.  iv.  leg.  18,  §  7. 

§  Acts  xx.  17,  28.  If  we  believed  ourselves  justified  in  supposing  that  among  them, 
there  were  not  merely  the  overseers  of  the  Ephesian  church,  but  also  those  of  othei 
churches  in  Lesser  Asia,  it  might  be  said,  that  by  these  "  bishops,"  enio-Komov?,  only  the 
presidents  of  the  presbyteries  are  intended.  But  the  other  passages  in  Paul's  epistles  aro 
against  such  a  distinction,  and  Luke,  who  applied  this  address  only  to  the  overseers  of  the 
Ephesian  church,  still  considered,  therefore,  the  terms  tnioKonog  and  npeajivxtpog  as  per- 
fectly synonymous. 


148  CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

tTuoKOTTfj,  and  immediately  after  (verse  8)  the  office  of  deacons  is  mem 
tioned  as  the  only  existing  church-office  besides,  as  also  in  Philip,  i.  1. 
Arid  thus  Paul  enjoins  Titus  to  appoint  presbyters,  and  immediately  after 
calls  them  bishops.  It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  every  church  was 
governed  by  a  union  of  the  elders  or  overseers*  chosen  from  among  them- 
selves, and  we  find  among  them  no  individual  distinguished  above  the 
rest  who  presided  as  a  primus  inter  pares,  though  probably,  in  the  age 
immediately  succeeding  the  apostolic,  of  which  we  have  unfortunately  so 
few  authentic  memorials,  the  practice  was  introduced  of  applying  to  such 
an  one  the  name  of  enioKonog  by  way  of  distinction.!  We  have  no 
information  how  the  office  of  president  in  the  deliberations  of  presbyters 
was  held  in  the  apostolic  age.  Possibly  this  office  was  held  in  rotation 
— or  perhaps  the  order  of  seniority  was  followed — or,  by  degrees,  one 
individual  by  his  personal  qualifications  may  have  gained  such  a  distinc- 
tion ;  all  this,  in  the  absence  of  information,  must  be  left  undetermined  ; 
one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  person  who  acted  as  president  was  not  yet 
distinguished  by  any  particular  name. 

The  government  of  the  church  was  the  peculiar  office  of  such  overseers  ; 
it  was  their  business  to  watch  over  the  general  order,  to  maintain  the 
purity  of  the  Christian  doctrine  and  of  Christian  practice,  to  guard 
against  abuses,  to  admonish  the  faulty,  and  to  guide  the  public  delib- 

*  I  must  here  again  (as  before,  p.  34,)  declare  myself  in  reference  also  to  the  first  organ- 
ization of  the  churches  among  the  Gentile  Christians,  opposed  to  the  view  maintained 
by  Kist  and  Baur,  that  originally  small  churches  formed  themselves  under  individual  over- 
seers, and  that  their  form  of  government  from  the  beginning  was  monarchical.  According 
to  Baur,  the  overseers  as  such  in  reference  to  their  peculiar  office,  were  "  bishops,"  kniono* 
iTci,  and  only  when  spoken  of  as  united  and  forming  a  college,  they  were  called  "  elders," 
npeopvrepoi.  In  Acts  xiv.  23,  we  are  told,  that  Paul  appointed  presbyters  for  the  churches, 
formed  in  the  different  cities,  that  is,  in  each  church  a  college  of  presbyters.  To  under- 
stand with  Baur,  that  the  plurality  of  presbyters  is  to  be  taken  collectively,  and  for  each 
church  only  one  presbyter  was  appointed,  would  be  inconsistent  with  Acts  xx.  17,  where 
it  is  said  that  Paul  seDt  for  the  presbyters  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  which  implies  that  a 
plurality  of  presbyters  presided  over  one  church;  or  the  word  EKKXriala  which  in  the  pas- 
sage first  quoted  is  understood  of  a  single  church,  must  be  here  arbitrarily  taken  to  signify 
several  churches  collectively — certainly  quite  contrary  to  the  phraseology  of  the  apostolic 
age,  according  to  which  the  word  eKulriaia  signifies,  either  the  whole  Christian  church, 
the  total  number  of  believers  forming  one  body  under  one  head,  or  a  single  church  or 
Christian  society.  In  that  case,  the  plural  tuv  ekk7^t)<uuv  must  necessarily  have  been 
used.  Acts  xx.  28  also  implies  that  over  each  church  a  plurality  of  presbyters  presided. 
And  thus  we  must  also  explain  Titus  i.  5,  which  explanation  (of  the  appointment  of 
several  presbyters  in  each  city)  is  also  generally  favored  by  the  language  there  used.  I 
can  discover  no  other  difference  between  the  "  elders"  and  "  bishops,"  in  the  apostolic 
age,  than  that  the  first  notes  the  dignity,  the  second  the  duties  of  the  office,  whether  the 
reference  is  to  one  or  more. 

+  Perhaps  an  analogy  may  be  found,  in  the  fact  (if  it  were  so),  that  one  among  the 
Jewish  presbyters  was  distinguished  by  the  name  of  Archisynagogos ;  or  the  names 
"  elders"  and  "  rulers  of  the  synagogue,"  (TrptaPvTepoL  and  dpxicvvdyuyoi)  may  bear  the 
flame  relation  to  each  other  as  "elders"  and  "bishops;"  the  first  name  denoting  the  rank 
the  second  the  nature  of  the  office,  dpxovreq  ttjs  ovvayuyfjs. 


USAGES    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  149 

erations ;  as  appears  from  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where 
their  functions  are  described.  But  their  government  by  no  means 
excluded  the  participation  of  the  whole  church  in  the  management  of 
their  common  concerns,  as  may  be  inferred  from  what  we  have  already  re- 
marked in  general  respecting  the  nature  of  the  Christian  community,  and 
as  is  also  evident  from  many  individual  examples  in  the  Apostolic  church. 
The  whole  church  at  Jerusalem  took  part  in  the  deliberations  respecting 
the  relation  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  to  each  other,  and  the 
epistle  drawn  up-after  these  deliberations  was  likewise  in  the  name  of  the 
whole  church.  The  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  which  treat  of  various 
controverted  ecclesiastical  matters,  are  addressed  to  whole  churches^ 
and  he  assumes  that  the  decision  belonged  to  the  whole  body.  Had  it 
been  otherwise,  he  would  have  addressed  his  instructions  and  advice, 
principally  at  least,  to  the  overseers  of  the  church.  When  a  licentious 
person  belonging  to  the  church  at  Corinth  was  to  be  excommunicated, 
the  apostle  considered  it  a  measure  that  ought  to  proceed  from  the  whole 
society  ;  and  placed  himself  therefore  in  spirit  among  them,  to  unite  with 
them  in  passing  judgment ;  1  Cor.  v.  3 — 5.  Also,  when  discoursing  of 
the  settlement  of  litigations,  the  apostle  does  not  affirm  that  it  properly 
belonged  to  the  overseers  of  the  church  ;  for  if  this  had  been  the  preva- 
lent custom,  he  would  no  doubt  have  referred  to  it ;  but  what  he  says 
seems  to  imply  that  it  was  usual  in  particular  instances  to  select  arbitra- 
tors from  among  the  members  of  the  church  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  5. 

As  to  what  relates  to  the  edification  of  the  church  by  the  word,  it 
follows  from  what  we  have  before  remarked,  that  this  was  not  the  ex- 
clusive concern  of  the  overseer  of  the  church;  for  each  one  had  a  right 
to  express  what  affected  his  mind  in  the  assembly  of  the  brethren  ;  hence 
many  did  not  sufficiently  distinguish  between  what  was  fit  only  for  their 
own  chamber,  where  every  man  might  freely  pour  forth  his  heart  before 
God,  and  what  was  suitable  for  communicating  publicly, — an  error  cen- 
sured by  Paul,  as  we  noticed  in  speaking  of  the  gift  of  tongues.* 

Only  the  female  members  of  the  church  were  excepted  from  this 
general  permission.  The  fellowship  of  a  higher  life  communicated  by 
Christianity,  extended  itself  to  the  relation  between  husband  and  wife ; 
and  the  unity  to  which,  according  to  its  original  destination,  human  na- 
ture aspires,  was  realized  in  this,  as  in  every  other  respect,  by  Christian- 
ity. But  since  whatever  is  founded  on  the  laws  of  nature  is  not  injured 
by  Christianity,  but  only  animated  afresh,  sanctified,  and  refined ;  so  also 
within  this  higher  fellowship  of  life,  which  was  to  unite  husband  and 

*  Tt  has  been  maintained,  indeed,  that  this  license  in  the  apostolic  church  was  ex- 
tended only  to  those  who  appeared  as  prophets  in  the  Christian  assemblies ;  that  from  such 
a  special  case  a  general  licence  is  not  to  bo  inferred,  for  these  men  as  teachers  armed  with 
duine  authority  and  speaking  in  God's  name,  might  ou  that  account  be  naturally  excepted 
from  common  rules.  See  Mosheim's  Institut.  Hist.  Eccles.  major,  sec.  i.  §  10  et.  18.  But 
this  objection  is  invalidated  by  what  we  have  remarked  respecting  the  charism  of  prophecy 
and  its  relation  to  other  charisma. 


150  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE   CHURCH. 

wife,  the  latter  retained  her  becoming  place  according  to  the  natural  des- 
tination of  her  sex.  Mental  receptivity  and  activity  in  family  life  were 
recognised  in  Christianity  as  corresponding  to  the  destiny  of  woman,  and 
hence  the  female  sex  are  excluded  from  delivering  public  addresses  on 
religious  subjects  in  the  meetings  of  the  church  ;*  1  Cor.  xiv.  34  ;  1 
Tim.  ii.  12. 

Yet  as  by  the  participation  of  all  in  the  conduct  of  church  affairs,  a  reg- 
ular government  by  appointed  organs  was  not  excluded,  but  both  church 
and  officers  cooperated  for  the  general  good ;  so  also  together  with  that 
which  the  members  of  the  church,  by  virtue  of  the  common  Christian  inspi- 
ration, could  contribute  to  their  mutual  edification,  there  existed  a  regular 
administration  of  instruction  in  the  church,  and  an  oversight  of  the  trans- 
mission and  development  of  doctrine  which  in  this  time  of  restlessness 
and  ferment  was  exposed  to  so  many  adulterations,  and  for  this  pur- 
pose the  "  gifts  of  teaching  "  were  designed.  There  were  three  orders  oi 
teachers  in  the  apostolic  age.  The  first  place  is  occupied  by  those  who 
were  personally  chosen  and  set  apart  by  Christ,  and  formed  by  inter- 
course with  him  to  be  instruments  for  publishing  the  gospel  among  all 
mankind — the  witnesses  of  his  discourses,  his  works,  his  sufferings,  and 


*  1  Cor.  xi.  5  appears  to  contradict  this  injunction,  and  in  ancient  times  the  Montan- 
ists  thought — with  whom  several  modern  writers  have  agreed — that  here  an  exception  is 
to  be  found ;  as  if  the  apostles  intended  to  bind  by  no  rule  those  cases  in  which  the  im- 
mediate operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  raised  up  prophets  from  the  female  sex ;  or  as  if  he 
wished  to  debar  females  only  from  addresses  that  were  peculiarly  didactic,  but  not  from 
the  public  expression  of  their  feelings.  But  as  to  the  first  interpretation,  it  supposes  too 
great  a  difference  in  respect  to  the  divine  element  between  the  6i6daKet.v — which  must 
also  proceed  from  an  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit— and  the  irpotf>7iTemiv.  It  must 
be  certainly  erroueous  to  suppose  that  any  operation  whatever  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
Christian  church  could  be  lawless.  When  the  apostle  Paul  points  out  to  the  female  that 
place  in  the  church  which  is  assigned  her  by  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  which  sanctifies  na- 
ture so  also  the  Holy  Spirit  which  is  the  Spirit  of  Christianity,  follows  everywhere  this  law 
of  nature  in  his  operations,  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  by  an  exception  he  would,  in  any 
way,  remove  woman  from  her  natural  position.  Every  deviation  of  this  kind  would  appear 
as  something  morbid,  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

Besides,  when  Paul  gave  that  prohibition  in  reference  to  females,  he  was  treating  of 
addresses  that  were  not  didactic.  This  could,  therefore,  make  no  exception,  whichever 
interpretation  be  applied.  We  must  rather  account  for  this  apparent  contradiction,  by 
supposing  that  Paul,  in  the  second  passage,  merely  cited  an  instance  of  what  occurred  in 
the  Corinthian  church,  and  reserved  his  censures  for  another  place.  One  of  the  reasons 
which  Paul  adduces  iu  the  passage  quoted  from  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  against  the 
public  speaking  of  females,  is  the  greater  danger  of  self-deception  in  the  weaker  sex.  and 
the  spread  of  errors  arising  from  it — a  reason  which  would  apply  with  the  greatest  force 
to  a  class  of  addresses,  in  which  sober  reflectiveness  was  least  of  all  in  exercise.  But  this 
kind  of  religious  utterance  would  be  most  suited  to  the  female  sex,  where  no  dauger  of  the 
sort  alluded  to,  arising  from  publicity,  would  be  connected  with  it — only  it  must  be  con- 
fined to  the  domestic  circle.  Hence  the  daughters  of  Philip,  Acts  xxi.  9,  notwithstanding 
that  rule,  could  act  as  prophetesses,  unless  we  assume  that  this  was  an  instance  which 
Paul  would  have  censured. 


COoTITUTION    OF    THE    CIIUnCH.  151 

his  resurrection — the  Apostles,*  among  whom  Paul  was  justly  included, 
on  account  of  Christ's  personal  appearance  to  him  and  the  illumination 
of  his  mind  independently  of  the  instructions  of  the  other  apostles  ;  next 
to  these,  were  the  Missionaries,  or  Evangelists,  evayyeXiarai  ;f  and 
lastly,  the  teachers  appointed  for  separate  churches,  and  taken  out  of 
their  body,  the  dtddeicaXoi.  If  sometimes  the  "  prophets,"  npo<p>JTai,  are 
named  next  to  the  apostles  and  set  before  the  evangelists  and  the  "teach 
ers,"  didaonaXoL,  such  teachers  must  be  meant  in  whom  that  inward 
condition  of  life-,  from  which  "  prophesying  "  proceeded,  was  more  con- 
stant, who  were  distinguished  from  other  teachers  by  the  extraordinary 
liveliness  and  steadiness  of  the  Christian  inspiration,  and  a  peculiar  orig- 
inality of  their  Christian  conceptions  which  were  imparted  to  them  by 
special  "  revelations,"  dnoitaXvipEig,  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  doubtless 
these  prophets,  as  is  evident  from  their  position  between  the  apostles 
and  evangelists,  belonged  to  the  class  of  teachers  who  held  no  office  in 
any  one  church,  but  travelled  about  to  publish  the  gospel  in  a  wider 
circle. 

As  regards  the  relation  of  the  "  teachers  "  to  the  "elders  or  bishops," 
we  obviously  have  no  right  to  proceed  on  the  supposition,  that  they 
always  remained  the  same  from  the  first  establishment  of  Christian 
churches  among  the  Gentiles,  and  therefore  during  the  whole  of  Paul's 
ministry,  a  period  so  important  for  the  development  of  the  church; 
and  hence  we  are  not  justified  in  concluding,  from  marks  found  in 
the  latest  Pauline  Epistles,  that  the  relation  of  these  orders,  as  obtained 
from  such  marks,  was  the  same  as  that  which  existed  from  the  begin- 
ning in  the  Gentile  churches.  If  we  find  several  things  in  earlier  docu- 
ments which  are  at  variance  with  these  characteristics,  the  supposition 
must  at  least  appear  possible,  that  changes  in  the  condition  of  the 
churches,  and  the  experiences  of  the  first  period,  had  occasioned  an  alter- 
ation in  this  respect ;  and  it  is  an  utterly  unfounded  conclusion,  if,  be- 
cause traces  of  such  an  altered  relation  are  found  in  an  epistle  ascribed  to 

*  This  name  in  a  general  sense  was  applied  to  others  who  published  divine  truth  in  an 
extensive  sphere  of  labor. 

f  This  name  does  not  imply  that  they  occupied  themselves  with  collecting  and  compil- 
ing narratives  of  the  life  of  Christ;  for  the  word  evayyiTuov  originally  denoted  nothing  else 
than  the  whole  announcement  of  the  salvation  granted  through  Christ  to  men,  and  this  an- 
nouncement embraced  the  whole  of  Christianity.  As  this  announcement  rests  on  a  histor- 
ical basis,  Christ  as  the  Redeemer  is  the  object  of  it;  and  thus  the  later-derived  meaning 
is  formed  in  which  this  word  is  specially  applied  to  the  histories  of  the  Life  of  Christ. 
According  to  the  original  Christian  phraseology,  the  term  could  only  denote  one  whose 
calling  it  was  to  publish  the  doctrine  of  salvation  to  men,  and  thereby  to  lay  a  foundation 
for  the  Christian  church ;  on  the  contrary,  the  "  teacher,"  Sidaonalos,  presupposed  faith  in 
the  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  a  church  already  founded,  and  employed  himself  in  the 
further  training  in  Christian  knowledge.  The  use  of  the  word  evayyeXiGrfjc  in  2  Tim.  iv. 
5.  favors  this  interpretation,  and  this  original  Christian  phraseology  was  continued  in  latei 
ages,  although  the  more  modern  meaning  of  the  word  evayyeXiov  was  connected  with  it. — 
Euseb.  Hist.  E:chs.  iii.  c.  37. 


152  USAGES    OF    THE    GENTILE    CHRISTIANS. 

Paul,  any  one  should  infer  that  such  an  epistle  could  not  have  been  writ- 
ten in  the  Pauline  period.  The  first  question  then  is,  What  was  the 
original  relation  ?  If  we  proceed  on  the  supposition,  which  is  founded 
on  the  Pastoral  Letters,  that  the  6i6daKaXoi  belonged  to  the  overseers  of 
the  churches,  two  cases  may  be  imagined  ;  either  that  all  the  presbyters 
or  bishops  held  also  the  office  of  teachers ;  or,  that  some  among  them, 
according  to  their  peculiar  talent  (xdpioiia),  were  specially  employed  in 
the  management  of  the  outward  guidance  of  the  church  (the  Kvfiepvrjcng), 
and  others  with  the  internal  guidance  of  the  word  (the  didaaicaXia) ;  we 
shall  thus  have  governing  elders ="  pastors,"  and  teaching  elders= 
"teachers,"  (jrpeofivTepoi  Kv(3epvG)VTeg  =  noin6veg  and  7rpea(3vrepot  diddo- 
novreg  =  diSdonaXoi.)  The  first  case  certainly  cannot  be  admitted, 
for  the  %apio\ia  of  Kvfiepvrjmg  is  as  decidedly  distinct  from  the  %o- 
pia\ia  of  SidaoicaXia,  as  in  common  life  the  talent  for  governing  and 
the  talent  for  teaching  are  perfectly  distinct  from  one  another.  And 
according  to  the  original  institution  the  peculiar  office  was  to  cor- 
respond to  the  peculiar  charism.  And,  farther,  since  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  Pauline  period  those  presbyters  who  were  equally  capable  of 
the  office  of  teachers  as  well  as  governors,  were  especially  commended, 
it  is  evident  that  this  was  not  originally  true  of  all.  But  neither  have 
we  sufficient  reason  for  considering  the  second  case,  as  noting  the  original 
relation  of  these  several  offices.  Since  the  gifts  of  ruling  or  government 
(in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  xii.  28,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  xii.  8),  is  so  accurately  distinguished  from  the  talent  of  teach- 
ing,— and  since  these  two  characteristics,  to  rule  and  to  govern  or  guide, 
evidently  exhaust  what  belonged  from  the  beginning  to  the  office  of 
presbyter  or  bishop,  and  for  which  it  was  originally  instituted,  we  are 
not  obliged  to  conclude  that  the  diddoitaXoi  belonged  to  the  class  of 
overseers  of  the  church. 

In  the  Epistle  written  at  a  later  period  to  the  Ephesians  (iv.  11),  the 
"  pastors"  and  "  teachers,"  noip.eveg  and  diddoicaXoi,  are,  it  is  true,  placed 
together,  in  so  far  as  they  are  both  distinguished  from  those  who  pre- 
sided over  a  more  general  sphere  of  labor,  but  only  in  that  respect. 
Now  the  term  notiieveg  denotes  exactly  the  office  of  rulers  of  the  church, 
the  presbyters  or  bishops  ;  it  is  not  at  all  clear,  therefore,  that  we  should 
class  the  dtddaKaXoi  with  them.  Otherwise  the  term  -noi\iivtg  might 
have  been  applied  not  improperly  to  diddonaXoi,  the  rather  that  in  itself, 
and  from  the  manner  in  which  the  image  of  a  shepherd  is  used  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  by  Christ  himself,  it  is  fitted  to  denote  the  guidance 
of  souls  by  the  office  of  teaching.  Farther,  Paul  classes  didaxv  with 
those  addresses  which  are  not  connected  with  holding  a  particular  office 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  26),  but  what  every  one  in  the  church  who  had  an  inward 
call,  and  an  ability  for  it,  was  justified  in  exercising. 

It  might  also  have  happened,  that  in  a  church,  after  its  presbytery  had 
already  been  established,  persons  belonging  to  it  came  forward,  or  new 


CONSTITUTION    OF    THE    CHURCH.  153 

members  were  added,  who,  in  consequence  of  their  previous  educa- 
tion, distinguished  themselves  in  the  office  of  teaching,  even  more  than 
the  existing  presbyters,  which  would  soon  be  evident  from  the  addresses 
they  delivered  when  the  church  assembled.  At  this  season  of  the  first 
free  development  of  the  Christian  life,  would  the  charism  granted  to  such 
persons  be  neglected  or  repressed,  merely  because  they  did  not  belong 
to  the  class  of  presbyters  ?  There  were,  as  it  appears,  some  members 
of  the  church  in  whose  dwellings  a  portion  of  them  used  to  assemble, 
and  this  depended  probably  not  always  on  the  convenient  locality  of  their 
residence,  but  on  their  talent  for  teaching,  which  was  tlms  rendered 
available ;  as  Aquila,  who  though  he  resided  sometimes  at  Rome,  some- 
times at  Corinth,  or  at  Ephesus,  always  wherever  he  took  up  his  abode 
had  a  small  congregation  or  church  in  his  own  house.  (77  inK^ota  kv 
tgJ    otto*)  avrov.)* 

Thus  originally  the  office  of  overseer  of  the  church  probably  had  nothing 
in  common  with  the  work  of  instruction.  Although  the  overseers  of  the 
church  took  cognisance  not  only  of  the  good  conduct  of  its  members,  but 
also  of  that  which  was  considered  as  forming  its  basis,  the  maintenance  of 
pure  doctrine,  and  the  exclusion  of  error  ;  and  though  from  the  beginning 
care  would  be  taken  to  appoint  persons  to  this  office  who  had  attained 
to  maturity  and  steadiness  in  their  Christian  principles,  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  possessed  the  gift  of  teaching,  and  in  addition  to  their  other 
labors  occupied  themselves  in  public  addresses.  .  It  may  be  that  at  first, 
"teaching"  was  not  generally  connected  with  a  distinct  office,  but  that 
those  who  were  fitted  for  it  came  forward  in  the  public  assemblies  as 

*  The  occurrence  of  such  private  churches  is  made  use  of  by  Kist  and  Baur  as  an  argu- 
ment for  their  opinion,  that  originally  in  the  larger  cities  there  were  only  insulated  particu- 
lar churches,  under  their  own  guiding  presbyters,  which  were  formed  in  various  parts,  and 
at  a  subsequent  period  were  united  into  one  whole.  But  the  Epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul 
give  the  clearest  evidence  that  all  the  Christians  of  one  city  originally  formed  one  whole 
church.  Yet  we  may  easily  suppose  that  some  parts  of  the  church,  without  separating 
themselves  from  the  whole  body  and  its  guidance,  held  particular  meetings  in  the  house  of 
some  person  whose  locality  was  suitable,  and  who  acted  as  the  "  teacher  "  for  the  edifi- 
cation of  such  small  assemblies.  Only  thus  can  it  be  explained  how  Aquila  and  Priscilla, 
whether  sojourning  at  Rome,  or  Corinth,  or  Ephesus,  could  have  had  such  a  small  Chris- 
tian society  in  their  own  house.  To  consider  these  as  absolutely  separate  and  distinct 
churches  would  be  inconsistent;  for  we  could  not  suppose  that  such  a  company  of  believers 
would  be  waiting  for  the  arrival  of  a  person  like  Aquila,  who  so  often  changed  his  resi- 
dence ;  they  must  have  had  a  fixed  place  of  assembling,  and  their  appointed  overseers,  a 
(presbyter  or  bishop,  as  the  opinion  may  be.)  In  1  Cor.  xvi.  20,  the  church,  forming  one 
whole  (all  the  brethren),  is  expressly  distinguished  from  any  such  partial  assembly.  In 
Rom.  xvi.  23,  a  brother  is  mentioned,  in  whose  house  the  whole  church  held  their  meet- 
ings. Ir  Coloss.  iv.  15,  after  a  salutation  to  the  whole  church,  an  individual  is  specified 
and  included  in  the  salutation,  at  whose  house  such  private  meetings  wero  held.     But  it 

may  be  questioned  whether  in  such  places  as  Rom.  xvi.  14,  15,  ("Salute  Asyncritus 

and  the  brethren  that  are  with  them."     "Salute  Philologus and  all  the  saints  that  art 

with  them")  meetings  of  this  kind  are  intended,  or  only  those  persons  who,  on  accouut  of 
their  family  ties  or  connexions  in  business,  lived  in  intimacy  with  one  another. 


154  USAGES    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS. 

"  teachers  ;"  until  it  naturally  came  to  pass  that  those  who  were  spe- 
cially furnished  with  the  "  gifts  of  teaching,"  of  whom  there  would  of 
course  be  only  a  few  in  most  churches;  were  considered  as  those  on  whom 
the  stated  delivery  of  instruction  devolved.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  (vi.  6),  Paul,  it  is  true,  seems  to*  intimate*  that  there  were  already 
teachers  appointed  by  the  church,  who  were  to  receive  their  maintenance 
from  them.  But  the  question  arises,  whether  these  words  relate  to  the 
"  teachers,"  or  to  the  itinerant  "  evangelists  ;"  also,  whether  the  passage 
speaks  of  some  regular  salary,  or  of  the  contributions  of  free  love,  by 
which  the  immediate  wants  of  these  missionaries  were  to  be  relieved. 
At  all  events, — which  would  also  be  confirmed  by  this  latter  passage,  in 
case  it  is  understood  of  "  teachers," — these  were  and  continued  to  be 
generally  distinct  from  the  overseers  of  the  church,  although  in  particu- 
lar cases  the  talents  of  teaching  and  governing  might  have  been  con- 
nected, and  the  presbyter  have  been  equally  able  as  a  teacher. 

Not  until  a  later  period,  when  the  pure  gospel  had  to  contend  with 
manifold  errors,  which  threatened  to  corrupt  it — as  was  especially  the 
case  during  the  latter  period  of  Paul's  ministry  ;f  not  until  this  critical 
period  was  it  thought  necessary  to  unite  more  closely  the  offices  of  teachers 
and  overseers,  and  to  take  care  that  overseers  should  be  appointed,  who 
would  be  able  by  their  public  instructions  to  protect  the  church  from  the 
infection  of  filse  doctrine,  to  establish  others  in  purity  of  faith,  and  to 
convince  the  gainsayers ;  Tit.  i.  9  ;  and  hence  he  esteemed  those  presby- 
ters who  labored  likewise  in  the  office  of  teaching,  as  deserving  of  special 
honor. 

We  have  already  remarked,  that  only  females  were  excluded  from 
the  right  of  speaking  in  the  public  meetings  of  the  church.  But  yet  the 
gifts  peculiar  to  their  sex  could  be  made  available  for  the  outward  service 
of  the  church,  in  rendering  assistance  of  various  kinds,  for  which  women 
are  peculiarly  fitted ;  and  according  to  existing  social  habits,  a  deacon 
in  many  of  his  official  employments  would  in  reference  to  the  female 
members  of  the  church  have  excited  suspicion  ;  but  it  was  desirable  by 

*  Even  after  the  reasons  alleged  by  Schott  against  this  interpretation,  in  his  commentary 
on  this  Epistle,  I  cannot  help  considering  it  as  the  only  natural  one.  And  I  cannot  adopt 
the  other,  according  to  which  the  nuaiv  dyadolg  is  understood  in  a  spiritual  sense,  (follow- 
ing the  example  of  their  teachers  in  all  that  is  good.)  I  cannot  suppose  that  Paul,  if  he 
had  wished  to  admonish  the  Galatians  to  follow  the  example  of  their  teachers  in  the  Chris- 
tian life,  would  have  expressed  himself  in  so  obscure  and  spiritless  a  manner.  As  to  tho 
objection  against  the  first  interpretation,  that  it  does  not  suit  the  connexion,  I  cannot  ad- 
mit its  correctness.  The  exhortations  to  gentleness  and  humility  in  social  intercourse,  in- 
troduce the  series  of  special  exhortations,  v.  26-vi.  6,  where  the  61  marks  the  continued 
development,  and  a  new  exhortation  follows,  namely,  that  they  should  be  ready  to  commu- 
nicate of  their  earthly  goods  to  their  teachers ;  then  verse  7,  that  they  must  not  think  of 
reaping  the  fruits  of  the  gospel,  if  their  conduct  was  not  formed  agreeably  to  it ;  if  they 
with  all  their  care  directed  only  to  earthly  things,  neglected  such  a  duty  towards  those 
who  labored  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls. 

\  See  farther  on. 


CONSTITUTION    OF    THE   CHURCH.  155 

all  meant  to  guard  against  any  such  imputation  on  the  new  religious  sect, 
of  which  men  were  easily  inclined  to  believe  evil,  because  it  was  new  and 
opposed  to  the  popular  faith.  Hence  the  office  of  deaconess  was  insti- 
tuted in  addition  to  that  of  deacon,  perhaps  first  in  the  churches  of  Gen- 
tile Christians.  Of  its  institution  and  duties  in  the  apostolic  age  we 
have  no  precise  information,  since  we  find  it  explicitly  mentioned  in  only 
one  passage  of  the  New  Testament ;  Rom.  xvi.  1.  In  modern  times,  in- 
deed, what  Paul  says  in  1  Tim.  v.  3-16,  df  the  widows  who  received 
their  maintenance  from  the  church,  has  been  applied  to  these  deacon- 
esses. And  many  qualifications  which  he  requires  of  those  who  were  to 
be  admitted  into  the  number  of  the  widows  (v.  10),  and  which  appear 
to  contain  a  reference  to  their  special  employments,  as  attention  to 
strangers  and  the  care  of  the  poor,  are  in  favor  of  the  supposition.  But 
since  Paul  only  distinguishes  them  as  persons  supported  by  the  church,* 
without  mentioning  any  active  service  as  devolving  upon  them  ;  since  he 
represents  them  as  persons  who,  as  suited  their  age  and  condition,  were 
removed  from  all  occupation  with  earthly  concerns,  and  dedicated  their 
few  remaining  days  to  devotion  and  prayer;  and  since,  on  the  contrary, 
the  office  of  deaconess  certainly  involved  much  active  employment ;  we 
have  no  ground  whatever  for  finding  in  this  passage  deaconesses,  or 
females  out  of  whose  number  deaconesses  were  chosen. f  What  Paul  says 
in  the  passage  quoted  above  of  the  deaconess  of  the  church  at  Cenchrea, 
appears  by  no  means  to  agree  with  what  is  said  in  the  First  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  concerning  the  age  and  destitute  condition  of  widows.  We 
must  rather  imagine  such  females  to  be  among  those  widows  who,  after 
presenting  a  model  in  discharging  their  duties  as  Christian  wives  and 
mothers,  would  now  obtain  repose  and  a  place  of  honor  in  the  bosom  of 
the  church,  where  alone  they  could  find  a  refuge  in  their  loneliness ;  and 
by  their  devotional  spiritual  life  set  an  edifying  example  to  other  females ; 
perhaps,  also,  they  might  be  able  to  communicate  to  such  of  their  sex  as 
sought  their  advice,  the  results  of  their  Christian  experience  collected  in 
the  course  of  a  long  life,  and  make  a  favorable  impression  even  on  the 
Gentiles.  Hence  it  would  naturally  be  an  occasion  of  scandal,  if  such 
persons  quitted  a  life  of  retirement  and  devotion,  and  showed  a  fondness 
for  habits  that  were  inconsistent  with  their  matronly  character.     At  all 

*  I  do  not  perceive  how  Baur  can  find  any  trace  in  the  5th  chapter  of  the  First  Epis- 
tle to  Timothy,  that  at  that  time  the  term'^pat  was  applied  to  the  young  unmarried 
females,  in  reference  to  their  station  in  the  church,  which  would  be  one  of  the  marks  of  a 
later  composition.  The  "  widows  indeed,"  uvtuc  X'iPali  m  v.  5,  are  the  truly  destitute, 
who  could  find  relief  only  in  the  church  for  their  loneliness,  contrasted  with  the  widows 
mentioned  in  verse  4,  who  were  supported  by  their  own  relations,  instead  of  being  a  bur- 
den to  the  church.  The  "  widow"  =  "desolate,"  ^7;pa=/ue//ovw,uev77,  verse  5,  where  the 
"  and  "  is  to  be  understood  as  explicative. 

f  The  supposition,  that  in  v.  9  mention  is  made  of  a  different  class  of  widows  than 
those  in  v.  3,  appears  to  me  utterly  untenable.  A  comparison  of  v.  16  with  vs.  4  and  8^ 
plainly  shows  that  this  whole  section  relates  to  the  same  subject 


156  USAGES   OP   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS. 

events,  we  find  here  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement  of  latei  apostolic  time 
which  is  also  indicated  by  other  parts  of  the  Epistle. 

The  consecration  to  offices  in  the  church  was  conducted  in  the  fol 
lowing  manner.  After  those  persons  to  whom  its  performance  belonged, 
had  laid  their  hands  on  the  head  of  the  candidate, — a  symbolic  action 
borrowed  from  the  Jewish  ns^ics, — they  besought  the  Lord  that  he  would 
grant,  what  this  symbol  denoted,  the  impartation  of  the  gifts  of  his 
Spirit  for  carrying  on  the  office  thus  undertaken  in  his  name.  If,  as  was 
presumed,  the  whole  ceremony  corresponded  to  its  intent,  and  if  the 
requisite  disposition  existed  in  those  on  whom  it  was  performed,  there 
was  good  reason  for  considering  the  communication  of  the  spiritual  gifts 
necessary  for  the  office,  as  connected  with  this  consecration  performed 
in  the  name  of  Christ.  And  since  Paul  from  this  point  of  view  designa- 
ted the  whole  of  the  solemn  proceeding,  (without  separating  it  into  its 
various  elements,)  by  that  which  was  its  external  symbol  (as  in  scriptural 
phraseology,  a  single  act  of  a  transaction  consisting  of  several  parts,  and 
sometimes  that  most  striking  to  the  senses,  is  often  mentioned  for  the 
whole) ;  he  required  of  Timothy  that  he  should  seek  to  revive  afresh  the 
spiritual  gifts  that  he  had  received  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  2  Ep.  i.  6. 

Respecting, farther,  the  election  to  offices  in  the  church,  it  is  evident 
that  the  first  deacons,  and  the  delegates  who  were  authorized  by  the 
church  to  accompany  the  apostles,  were  chosen  from  the  general  body  ; 
2  Cor.  viii.  19.  From  these  examples  it  might  be  concluded  that  a  sim- 
ilar mode  of  proceeding  was  adopted  at  the  appointment  of  presbyters. 
From  the  fact  that  Paul  committed  to  his  disciples  Timothy  and  Titus 
(to  whom  he  assigned  the  organization  of  new  churches,  or  of  such  as 
had  been  injured  by  many  corruptions)  the  appointment  likewise  of 
presbyters  and  deacons,  and  called  their  attention  to  the  qualifications 
for  such  offices,  we  are  by  no  means  justified  in  concluding  that  they  per- 
formed all  this  alone  without  the  cooperation  of  the  churches.  The 
manner  in  which  Paul  was  wont  to  address  himself  to  the  whole  church, 
and  to  require  the  cooperation  of  the  whole  assembly,  which  must  be 
apparent  to  every  one  in  reading  his  Epistles, — leads  us  rather  to  expect, 
that  where  a  church  was  already  established,  he  would  consult  it  as  a 
party  in  their  common  concerns.  Meanwhile  it  is  possible,  that  the 
apostle  himself  in  many  cases,  as  on  the  founding  of  a  new  church, 
might  think  it  advisable  to  propose  the  persons  best  fitted  for  such  offices, 
and  such  a  proposal  would  naturally  carry  the  greatest  weight  with  it. 
In  the  example  of  the  family  of  Stephanas  at  Corinth,  we  see  that  those 
who  first  undertook  office  in  the  church,  were  members  of  the  family 
first  converted  in  that  city.   1  Cor.  xvi.  15. 

It  was  also  among  the  churches  of  the  Gentile  Christians  that  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  Christian  Worship  was  fully  expressed  in  the  chai- 
acter  of  their  cultus.  For  among  the  Jewish  Christians  the  ancient 
forms  of  the  Jewish  cultus  were  still  retained,  though  persons  of  this 
class  who  were  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  henco 


USAGES    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  157 

bad  acquired  the  essence  of  inward  spiritual  worship,  which  is  limited 
to  no  place  or  time, — were  made  free  as  it  regarded  their  inward  life 
from  the  thraldom  of  these  forms,  and  had  learned  to  refine  them  by 
viewing  them  in  the  light  of  the  gospel.  Such  persons  thought  that  the 
powers  of  the  future  world  which  they  were  conscious  of  having  received, 
would  still  continue  to  operate  in  the  forms  belonging  to  the  ancient 
economy,  until  that  future  world  and  the  whole  of  its  new  heavenly 
economy  would  arrive,  by  means  of  the  return  of  Christ  to  complete  his 
kingdom, — a  decisive  era  which  appeared  to  them  not  far  distant.  On 
the  contrary,  among  the  Gentiles  the  free  spiritual  worship  of  God  de- 
veloped itself  in  direct  opposition  to  Judaism,  and  the  attempts  to  min- 
gle Judaism  and  Christianity.  According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle 
Paul,  the  Mosaic  law  in  its  whole  extent  had  lost  its  value  as  such  to 
Christians ;  nothing  could  be  a  rule  binding  on  Christians  on  account  of 
its  being  contained  in  the  Mosaic  law  ;  but,  whatever  was  binding  as  a 
law  for  the  Christian  life,  must  as  such  derive  its  authority  from  another 
quarter.  Hence  a  transference  of  the  Old  Testament  command  of  the 
sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Christian  point  of  view  was  not  admissible. 
Whoever  considered  himself  subject  to  one  such  command,  in  Paul's 
judgment  again  placed  himself  under  the  yoke  of  the  whole  law ;  his  in- 
ward life  was  thereby  brought  into  servitude  to  outward  earthly  tilings, 
and  sinking  into  Jewish  nationalism  he  denied  the  universalism  of  the 
gospel ;  for  by  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  the  whole  life  should  become 
in  an  equal  manner  related  to  God,  and  serve  to  glorify  him,  and  thence- 
forth no  opposition  was  to  exist  between  what  belonged  to  the  world 
and  what  belonged  to  God.  Thus  all  the.  days  of  the  Christian  life  were 
to  be  equally  holy  to  the  Lord ;  hence  Paul  says  to  the  Galatian  Chris- 
tians, who  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  so  far  led  astray  as  to  acknowl- 
edge the  Mosaic  law  as  binding,  and  to  observe  the  Jewish  feasts,  "After 
that  ye  have  known  God,  or  rather  (by  his  pitying  love),  have  been  led 
to  the  knowledge  of  God,  how  turn  ye  again*  to  the  weak  and  beggarly 
elements,  whereunto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage  ?"f  Gal.  iv.  9.    He 

*  Thus  he  spoke  to  those  who  had  formerly  been  heathen ;  for  although  in  other 
points  Judaism  might  be  considered  as  opposed  to  heathenism,  yet  he  viewed  as  an  ele- 
ment common  to  both,  the  cleaving  to  outward  forms. 

\  I  have  translated  this  passage  according  to  the  sense ;  more  literally  it  would  be, — 
"  or  rather  are  known  by  God,  are  become  objects  of  his  pity,  are  recognised  as  his." 
Living  in  estrangement  from  him,  they  lived  in  spiritual  darkness,  in  ignorance  of  God 
and  of  divine  things ;  but  now  by  the  mercy  of  God  revealing  itself  to  them,  they  obtained 
living  communion  with  him,  and  the  true  knowledge  of  him.  After  Paul  had  contrasted 
their  present  attainment  in  divine  knowledge  with  their  former  state  of  ignorance,  ho 
corrects  himself,  in  order  not  to  let  it  be  imagined  that  they  were  indebted  simply  to  the 
exercise  of  their  own  reason  for  this  knowledge  of  God,  and  represents  in  strong  terms, 
that  they  were  indebted  for  every  thing  to  divine  grace,  the  grace  of  redemption.  There- 
fore they  were  guilty  of  ingratitude  in  not  making  use  of  the  knowledge  vouchsafed  to 
them  by  the  grace  >  God.  Had  it  been  possible  for  Paul,  according  to  the  idiom  of  the 
Greek,  to  mark  by  a  passive  form  of  the  same  word  yivuoneiv,  the  contrast  between  a 


158  CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

fears  that  his  labors  among  them  to  make  them  Christians  had  been  in 
vain,  and  for  this  very  reason,  that  they  reckoned  the  observance  of 
certain  days  as  holy  to  be  an  essential  part  of  religion.  The  apostle 
does  not  here  oppose  the  Christian  feasts  to  the  Jewish,  but  he  considers 
this  whole  reference  of  religion  to  certain  days  as  something  foreign  to 
the  exalted  position  of  Christian  freedom,  and  belonging  to  that  of 
Judaism  and  heathenism.  With  a  similar  polemical  view  (in  Coloss.  ii. 
16)  he  declares  his  opposition  to  those  who  considered  the  observance  of 
certain  days  as  essential  to  religion,  and  who  condemned  such  as  did  not  ob- 
serve them.  Although,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  xiv.  1-6,  he  enjoins 
forbearance  towards  those  in  whom  the  Christian  spirit  was  not  yet  de- 
veloped with  true  freedom,  yet  he  certainly  considers  it  as  the  most  gen- 
uine Christianity  to  think  every  day  alike,  to  hold  none  as  peculiarly 
sacred  to  the  Lord;  the  Kpiveiv  -rxaaav  7\\ikpav—\vr]  (ppovuv  Kvpico  ttjv 
fjfiepav. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  Paul  in  such  passages  entirely  rejects  even 
festive  observances,  as  they  were  considered  among  Gentiles  and  Jews  as 
something  absolutely  essential  to  religion,  and  does  not  even  mention 
any  days  which  had  been  consecrated  to  religion  in  a  freer  method,  and 
suited  to  Christianity,  Christian  feasts  properly  so  called.  So  far  was  he 
from  thinking  that  from  the  Christian  point  of  view  there  could  be  days 
which  could  in  any  manner  bear  a  resemblance  to  what  in  the  Jewish  sense 
was  a  feast,  or  that  it  was  necessary  to  set  apart  any  day  whatever  as  special- 
ly to  be  observed  by  the  church !  From  such  passages  we  may  conclude, 
that,  in  the  Gentile  churches,  all  days  of  the  week  were  considered  alike 
suitable  for  the  service  of  the  church  ;  and  that  all  preference  of  one  day 
to  another  was  regarded  as  quite  foreign  to  the  genius  of  the  gospel. 

A  perfectly  unquestionable  and  definite  mention  of  the  ecclesiastical 
observance  of  Sunday  among  the  Gentile  Christians  we  cannot  find  in 
the  times  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  but  there  are  two  passages  which  make 
its  existence  probable.  If  what  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  relates  to  col- 
lections Avhich  were  made  at  the  meetings  of  the  church,  it  would  be  evi- 
dent from  this  passage  that  at  that  time  the  Sunday  was  specially  devoted 
to  such  meetings.  But  Paul,  if  we  examine  his  language  closely,  says  no 
more  than  this :  that  every  one  should  lay  by  in  his  own  house  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  whatever  he  was  able  to  save.  This  certainly  might 
mean,  that  every  one  should  bring  with  him  the  sum  he  had  saved  to  the 
meeting  of  the  church,  that  thus  the  individual  contributions  might  be 
collected  together,  and  he  ready  for  Paul  as  soon  as  he  came.  But  this 
would  be  making  a  gratuitous  supposition,  not  at  all  required  by  the 

knowledge  imparted  by  God,  and  a  knowledge  gained  by  the  exercise  of  the  men- 
tal powers  alone,  he  would  for  that  purpose  have  used  the  passive  form.  This,  in- 
deed, the  laws  of  the  Greek  language  did  not  permit;  but  yet  the  passive  form,  according 
to  his  customary  Hellenistic  idiom,  gave  him  an  opportunity  to  mark  the  contrast  which 
he  had  in  his  mind  still  more  strongly. 


USAGES    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  159 

connexion  of  t\  e  passage.*  We  may  fairly  understand  the  whole  pas- 
sage to  mean,  that  every  one  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  should  lay  aside 
what  he  could  spare,  so  that  when  Paul  came,  every  one  might  be  pre- 
pared with  the  total  of  the  sum  thus  laid  by,  and  then,  by  putting  the 
sums  together,  the  collection  of  the  whole  church  would  be  at  once  made 
If  we  adopt  this  interpretation,  we  could  not  infer  that  special  meetings 
of  the  church  were  held  and  collections  made  on  Sundays.  And  if  we 
assume  that,'  independently  of  the  influence,  of  Christianity,  the  Jewish 
reckoning  by  weeks  had  been  adopted  among  the  heathen  in  the  Roman 
Empire ;  still  in  this  passage  we  can  find  no  evidence  for  the  existence 
of  a  religious  distinction  of  Sunday.  But  since  we  are  not  authorized  to 
make  this  assumption, unless  a  church  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  those 
■who  had  been  Jewish  Proselytes,!  we  shall  be  compelled  to  conclude 
that  the  religious  observances  of  Sunday  occasioned  its  being  considered 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  It  is  also  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.  7,  that  the 
church  at  Troas  assembled  on  a  Sunday  and  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper. 
But  here  the  question  arises,  whether  Paul  put  off  his  departure  from 
Troas  to  the  next  day,  because  he  wished  to  celebrate  the  Sunday  with 
this  church — or  whether  the  church  met  on  the  Sunday  (though  other- 
wise they  might  have  met  on  any  other  day)  because  Paul  had  fixed  to 
leave  Troas  on  the  following  day. 

At  all  events,  Ave  must  derive  the  origin  of  the  religious  observance  of 
Sunday,  not  from  the  Jewish-Christian  churches,  but  from  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  and  we  may  account  for  the 
practice  in  the  following  manner.  Where  the  circumstances  of  the 
churches  did  not  allow  of  daily  meetings  for  devotion  and  agapse — 
although  in  the  nature  of  Christianity  no  necessity  could  exist  for  such  a 
distinction,  although  on  the  Christian  principle  all  days  were  to  be 
considered  as  equally  holy,  in  an  equal  manner  devoted  to  the  Lord — 
yet  on  account  of  these  special  outward  circumstances,  such  a  distinc- 
tion of  a  particular  day  was  adopted  for  religious  communion.  They 
rejected  the  Sabbath  which  the  Jewish  Christians  celebrated,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  risk  of  mingling  Judaism  and  Christianity,  and  because 
another  event  associated  more  closely  another  day  with  their  Christian 
feelings.  For,  since  the  sufferings  and  resurrection  of  Christ  appeared  as 
the  central  point  of  Christian  knowledge  and  practice  ;  since  his  resur- 
rection was  viewed  as  the  foundation  of  all  Christian  joy  and  hope,  it  was 
natural  that  the  day  which  was  connected  with  the  remembrance  of  this 
event,  should  be  specially  devoted  to  Christian  communion. 

But  even  if  a  weekly  day  was  thus  distinguished  in  the  churches  of 
Gentile  Christians,  still  it  is  very  doubtful  if  any  yearly  commemoration 
of  the  resurrection  was  observed  among  them.  Some  have  found  in 
1  Cor.  v.  7,  a  reference  to  a  Christian  passover  which  was  to  be  celebrated 

*  The  word  6r)csavpi(uv,  1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  applied  to  setting  aside  tbe  small  sums  weekly 
i*  against  the  notion  of  a  public  collection. 
f  See  Idoler's  Chronologie,  vol.  I.  p.  180. 


160  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

in  a  Christian  sense,  and  with  reference  to  its  Christian  significance ;  but 
we  can  find  a  reference  only  to  a  Jewish  passover,  which  was  still  cele- 
brated by  the  Jewish  Christians.  When  Paul  was  writing  those  words, 
the  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians  were  present  to  his  imagination,  as,  on 
the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  they  carefully  searched  every  corner  of  their 
houses,  lest  any  morsel  of  leaven  should  have  escaped  their  notice.  This 
practice  of  outward  Judaism  he  applies  in  a  spiritualized  sense  to  Chris- 
tians. "  Purify  yourselves  from  the  old  leaven  (the  leaven  of  your  old 
nature,  which  still  cleaves  to  you  from  your  old  corruption),  that  you 
may  become  a  new  mass  (that  is,  renewed  and  justified  human  nature), 
and  as  it  were  unleavened,  (that  is,  purified  by  Christ  from  the  leaven 
of  sin,  as  elsewhere  Paul  represents  purification  from  sin,  the  being  dead 
to  sin,  as  connected  with  the  death  of  Christ)*  for  Christ  has  been  offered 
as  our  paschal  lamb ;  (they  were  ever  to  remember  that  true  paschal 
lamb,  by  whose  offering  they  were  truly  freed  from  sin  ;  the  Jewish 
paschal  lamb  was  henceforth  useless).  Therefore,  as  men  purified  from 
sin  by  Christ  our  paschal  lamb,  let  us  celebrate  the  feast,  not  after  the 
manner  of  the  Jews,  who  swept  the  leaven  out  of  their  houses,  but 
retained  the  leaven  of  old  corruption  in  their  hearts— but  let  us  so  cele- 
brate it  that  we  may  be  a  mass  purified  in  heart  from  the  leaven  of  sin." 
In  all  this,  there  is  evidently  no  reference  to  the  celebration  of  a  Chris- 
tian passover  among  Gentile  Christians,  but  only  the  contrast  of  the 
spiritual  passover,  comprehending  the  whole  life  of  the  redeemed,  with 
the  merely  outward  Jewish  feast.f 

The  celebration  of  the  two  symbols  of  Christian  communion,  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  belonged  to  the  unchangeable  groundwork  of  the 
Christian  church,  laid  by  the  Divine  Founder  Himself;  these  rites 
therefore  were  to  be  recognised  equally  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  no 
alteration  could  be  made  in  them  by  the  peculiar  form  of  ecclesiastical 
life  among  the  Gentiles ;  we  need  therefore  to  add  little  to  what  we  have 
before  remarked.  In  Baptism,  entrance  into  communion  with  Christ  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  essential  point ;  thus  persons  were  united  to  the 
spiritual  body  of  Christ  and  received  into  the  communion  of  the  re- 
deemed, the  church  of  Christ;  Gal.iii.27;  1  Cor.  xii.  13.     Hence  bap- 

*  This  is  no  doubt  the  simplest  interpretation  of  the  words  icaddc  ears  a^v/ioi,  "  as  ye 
are  unleavened,"  purified  as  redeemed  persons  for  ever  from  the  "leaven  of  sin,"  fiSpg 
i%  i/iapriag.  But  if  with  Grotius  we  understand  the  words  according  to  the  analogy 
of  the  Greek  umroc,  ioivog,  "as  ye  eat  no  leaven,"  inasmuch  "as  ye  celebrate  the  feast 
of  unleavened  bread,  or  the  Passover,"  still  this  can  be  understood  only  of  a  spiritual 
passover ;  lor  otherwise  it  would  not  agree  with  that  which  is  afterwards  adduced  as  a 
reason,  and  it  would  also  be  implied  that  the  Gentile  Christians  had  refrained  from 
leavened  bread  at  Easter,  which  Paul,  on  his  principles,  could  not  have  allowed. 

t  If  we  supposed  that  these  words  related  to  an  Easter-feast,  celebrated  among  the 
Gentile  Christians,  it  would  follow  that  they  celebrated  this  feast  at  the  same  time  as  the 
Jews,  and  then  it  would  hardly  be  possible  to  explain  the  rise  of  the  disputes  relative  tc 
the  time  of  observing  Easter. 


USAGES   OF   THE   GE>TTTLE   CHRISTIANS.  161 

tism,  according  to  its  characteristic  mark,  was  designated  a  baptism  into 
Christ,  into  the  name  of  Christ,  as  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  was  the  original  article  of  faith  in  the  apostolic  church  ;  and  this 
was  probably  the  most  ancient*  formula  of  baptism;  which  was  still  made 
use  of  even  in  the  third  century  (see  my  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  546). 
The  usual  form  of  submersion  at  baptism,  practised  by  the  Jews,  was  passed 
over  to  the  Gentile  Christians.  Indeed,  this  form  was  the  most  suitable 
to  signify  that  which  Christ  intended  to  render  an  object  of  contempla- 
tion by  such  a  symbol ;  the  immersion  of  the  whole  man  in  the  spirit  of 
a  new  life.  But  Paul  availed  himself  also  of  what  was  accidental  to  the 
form  of  this  symbol,  the  two-fold  act  of  submersion  and  of  emersion,  to 
which  Christ  certainly  made  no  reference  at  the  institution  of  the  sym- 
bol. As  he  found  therein  a  reference  to  Christ  Dead,  and  Christ  Risen, 
the  negative  and  positive  aspect  of  the  Christian  life — in  imitation  of 
Christ  dying  to  all  ungodliness,  and  in  communion  with  him  rising  to  a 
new  divine  life, — so  in  the  transmitted  form  of  baptism,  he  made  use  of 
what  was  thus  accidental  to  represent,  by  a  sensible  image,  the  idea 
and  design  of  the  rite  in  its  connexion  with  the  whole  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity.! 

Since  baptism  marked  the  entrance  into  communion  with  Christ,  it  re- 
sulted from  the  nature  of  the  rite,  that  a  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  as 
the  Redeemer  would  be  made  by  the  person  to  be  baptized ;  and  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  apostolic  age,  there  are  found  indications  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  practice.^     As  baptism  was  closely  united  with  a  con- 

*  In  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  (lib.  I.  visio  iii.  c.  7),  in  Fabriccii  Cod.  apocr.  Nov.  Test, 
p.  804,  it  is  said,  I  have  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,    baptizavi  in  nomine  Domini. 

■j-  Everything  pertaining  to  the  more  exact  development  of  the  dogmatic  idea,  we  re- 
serve for  the  section  on  doctrines. 

J  These  indications  are  such  as  will  not  amount  to  incontrovertible  certainty.  We  find 
the  least  doubtful  reference  in  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  but  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  has  been 
much  disputed.  If  the  words  are  understood  in  this  sense,  "a  question  as  to  a  good  con- 
science in  reference  to  God,  through  the  resurrection  of  Christ,"  a  question  proposed  at 
baptism  might  be  inferred  from  it,  of  which  the  purport  would  be,  whether  a  person  be- 
lieved in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  a  pledge  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  granted  to  him, 
and  hence  would  think  of  God  in  this  faith  with  a  good  conscience.  But  Winer  could 
against  such  an  interpretation  of  the  passage  justly  object,  that  in  this  case,  the  answer 
given  by  the  candidate  as  an  expression  of  his  confession,  of  his  faith  which  peculiarly 
related  to  salvation,  rather  than  the  question,  must  have  been  mentioned.  Yet  Winer's 
explanation  (in  his  Grammar)  in  reference  to  the.  word  en-e^w-^a, — the  seeking  of  a  good 
conscience  after  God, — although  tirepcjTdv  etc  in  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  as  the  passage  ad- 
duced by  Winer  shows,  may  have  this  meaning — does  not  appear  the  most  natural.  If 
Peter  had  wished  to  say  this,  would  he  not  have  preferred  using  the  form  tTvepuTj/mc  ? 
And  may  it  not  be  said  against  this  interpretation,  that  the  apostle  would  have  mentioned 
as  that  which  saved  at  baptism,  not  so  much  the  seeking  after  God,  as  the  finding  God 
through  Christ,  the  attainment  of  communion  with  him,  according  to  tho  analogy  of  scrip- 
tural representations  on  this  subject  ? 

But  what  Peter  wished  particularly  to  point  out,  was  the  spiritual  character  of  th« 
whole  baptismal  rite,  in  opposition  to  a  mere  outward  sr  *ible  purification.     This  spiritual 

11 


162  CONSTITUTION    OF   THE  CHURCH. 

scious  entrance  on  Christian  communion,  faith  and  baptism  were  always 
connected  with  one  another ;  and  thus  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  proba- 
ble that  baptism  was  performed  only  in  the  instances  where  both  could 
meet  together,  and  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  unknown  at 
this  period.  We  cannot  infer  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  from  the 
instance  of  the  baptism  of  whole  families,  for  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  xvi 
15,  shows  the  fallacy  of  such  a  conclusion,  as  from  that  it  appears  that 
the  whole  family  of  Stephanas,  who  were  baptized  by  Paul,  consisted  of 
adults.  That  not  till  so  late  a  period  as  (at  least  certainly  not  earlier 
than)  Irenseus,  a  trace  of  infant  baptism  appears,  and  that  it  first  became 
recognised  as  an  apostolic  tradition  in  the  course  of  the  third  century,  is 
evidence  rather  against  than  for  the  admission  of  its  apostolic  origin  ; 
especially  since,  in  the  spirit  of  the  age  when  Christianity  appeared, 
there  were  many  elements  which  must  have  been  favorable  to  the  intro- 
duction of  infant  baptism, — the  same  elements  from  which  proceeded  the 
notion  of  the  magical  effects  of  outward  baptism,  the  notion  of  its  abso- 
lute necessity  for  salvation,  the  notion  which  gave  rise  to  the  myth 
that  the  apostles  baptized  the  Old  Testament  saints  in  Hades.*  How 
very  much  must  infant  baptism  have  corresponded  with  such  a  tendency, 
if  it  had  been  favored  by  tradition  !  It  might  indeed  be  alleged,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  after  infant  baptism  had  long  been  recognised  as  an 
apostolic  tradition,  many  other  causes  hindered  its  universal  introduction, 
and  the  same  causes  might  still  earlier  have  stood  in  the  way  of  its 
spread,  although  a  practice  sanctioned  by  the  apostles.  But  these  causes 
could  not  have  operated  in  this  manner  in  the  post-apostolic  age.  In 
later  times,  we  see  the  opposition  between  theory  and  practice,  in  this 
respect,  actually  coming  forth.  Besides,  that  a  practice  which  could  not 
altogether  deny  the  marks  of  its  later  institution,  although  at  last  recog- 
nized as  of  apostolic  founding,  could  not  for  a  length  of  time  pervade  the 
life  of  the  church,  is  something  quite  different  from  this :  that  a  practice 
really  proceeding  from  apostolic  institution  and  tradition,  notwithstanding 
the  authority  that  introduced  it,  and  the  circumstances  in  its  favor  aris- 
ing from  the  spirit  of  the  times,  should  yet  not  have  been  generally 
adopted.  And  if  we  wish  to  ascertain  from  whom  such  an  institution 
originated,   we    should    say,    certainly   not    immediately  from    Christ 

character  could  certainly  be  pointed  out  by  the  question  proposed  at  baptism,  which  re- 
ferred to  the  spiritual,  religious  object  of  the  rite  ;  and  the  question  is  alluded  to  instead 
of  the  answer,  because  it  precedes  and  is  that  which  gives  occasion  to  the  answer,  and  thus 
the  first  interpretation  may  be  justified. 

The  second  trace  of  such  a  baptismal  confession  is  found  in  1  Tim.  vi.  12,  but  it  is  not 
quite  evident  that  a  confession  of  this  kind  is  intended;  it  might  be  only  one  which 
Timothy  had  given  from  the  free  impulse  of  feeling,  when  he  was  set  apart  to  be  the  aaa  o- 
ciate  of  Paul  in  publishing  the  gospel. 

*  See  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  iii.  ch.  15.  Fabriccii  cod.  Apocryp.  p.  in.  p  1009.  lib. 
ill.  simil.  ix.  p.  428,  ed.  Hefele.  Tub.  1847.  narepTio-av  ovv  fier'  avruv  eic  to  vdup,  ical 
irdfav  dvefiTjiav. 


USAGES    OF   THE   GENTILE   CHRISTIANS.  163 

himself.  Was  it  then  from  the  primitive  church  in  Palestine',  from  an 
injunction  given  by  the  earlier  apostles  ?  But  among  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, circumcision  was  held  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  hence  they 
had  so  much  less  occasion  to  make  use  of  another  dedication  for  their 
children.  Could  it  then  have  been  Paul,  who  first  among  heathen 
Christians  introduced  this  alteration  by  the  use  of  baptism.  But  this 
would  agree  least  of  all  with  the  peculiar  Christian  characteristics  of  this 
apostle.  He  who  says  of  himself  that  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach  the  gospel ;  he  who  always  kept  his  eye  fixed  on  one 
thing,  jusification  by  faith,  and  so  carefully  avoided  every  thing  which 
could  give  a  handle  or  support  to  the  notion  of  a  justification  by  out- 
ward things  (the  oapniKa) — how  could  he  have  set  up  infant  baptism 
against  the  circumcision  that  continued  to  be  practised  by  the  Jewish 
Christians?  In  this  case,  the  dispute  carried  on  with  the  Judaizing 
party,  on  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  would  easily  have  given  an  op- 
portunity of  introducing  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  into  the  contro- 
versy, if  it  had  really  existed.  The  evidence  arising  from  silence  on  this 
topic,  has  therefore  the  greater  weight. 

Even  if  in  1  Cor.  xv.  29  a  substitutionary  baptism  for  the  dead  is 
intended,*  as  indeed  appears  to  be  the  most  natural  interpretation,  yet 
this  could  not  be  made  use  of,  by  way  of  analogy,  to  support  the  exist- 
ence of  infant  baptism.  For  if  the  interpretation  alluded  to  be  correct, 
yet  we  cannot  understand  it,  as  if  the  Christians  imagined  that  their  de- 
ceased relatives  who  died  in  unbelief  could  be  benefited  by  a  substitu- 
tionary baptism  ;  for  according  to  this  supposition,  Christians  need  not 
care  so  much  for  converting  the  living  as  for  baptizing  [or  baptizing  for] 
the  dead.  And  certainly  Paul  would  not  have  used,  even  as  a  mere 
argumentum  ad  homi?ie?n,  a  superstition  carried  so  far  beyond  all  bounds. 
He  could  not  even  have  mentioned  a  superstition  productive  of  such  a 
distortion  of  Christianity  without  strong  expressions  of  his  disapproba- 

*  Independent  of  this  Pauline  passage  there  is  no  trace  to  be  found  anywhere  of  such 
a  substitutionary  baptism.  The  testimony  of  Tertullian  has  been  erroneously  cited.  He 
refers,  De  resurrectione  carnis,  c.  48,  only  to  what  he  believed  Paul  to  say  in  these  words. 
In  his  work  against  Marcion,  v.  10,  he  also  refers  merely  to  that  passage,  and  it  seems  to 
him  that  in  such  substitutionary  baptism  there  is  sometl  ng  similar  to  the  heathen  purga- 
tions for  the  dead,  which  took  place  on  the  1st  of  February,  the  Februationes.  He  thought 
it  important  to  remark,  that  Paul  could  not  have  approved  of  such  a  practice.  "  Viderit 
institutio  ista.  Kalenda?  si  forte  Februariae  respondebunt  illi  pro  mortuis  petero.  Noli 
ergo  apostolum  novum  statim  auctorem  aut  cohfirmatorem  ejus  denotare,  ut  tanto  magis 
6isteret  carnis  resurrectionem,  quanto  illi  qui  vane  pro  mortuis  baptizarentur,  fide  resurrec- 
tionis  hoc  facerent."  "  Let  this  rite  take  care  of  itself;  the  Calendar  Februariaj,  perchance, 
will  answer  to  that  praying  for  the  dead.  Do  not,  therefore,  at  once  designate  the  apos- 
tle as  a  voucher  or  confirmer  of  the  doctrine  which  would  establish  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  on  the  fact  that  an  unauthorized  baptism  for  the  dead  was  performed  in  the  faith  of 
a  resurrection.)  And  he  himself  afterwards  proposes  another  interpretation  of  the  passage, 
according  to  which  there  is  no  allusion  to  a  substitutionary  baptism.  Later  uneducated 
Marcionites  in  Syria  had,  most  probably  from  this  passage  of  St.  Paul's,  adopted  a  practice 
altogether  at  variance  with  the  spiiit  of  Marcion. 


164  CONSTITUTION   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

tion.  We  must  rather  form  some  such  conception  as  the  following  of  the 
state  of  the  case.  It  seems  that  at  that  time,  in  Corinth,  an  epidemic 
had1  been  raging  which  in  many  instances  had  terminated  fatally.  When 
those  who  had  already  believed  were  taken  away  by  death  before  they 
could  receive  baptism,  as  they  otherwise  would  have  done,  their  relations 
were  baptized  in  their  stead,  since  they  knew  that  they  could  themselves 
submit  to  baptism,  and  express  Christian  conviction  in  the  name,  and 
according  to  the  intention  of  the  deceased.  But  then,  faith,  as  the  nec- 
essary condition  of  baptism,  was  presupposed  to  exist  in  those  persons 
in  whose  stead  they  allowed  themselves  to  be  baptized.  Paul  would  then, 
it  is  true,  have  borrowed  for  the  occasion  an  argument  from  the  faith 
lying  at  the  basis  of  such  a  custom ;  but  he  would  probably  have  taken 
care  to  declare  himself,  at  another  opportunity,  opposed  to  the  custom 
itself,  as  he  did  in  referenceto  females  speaking  in  their  public  assemblies. 

If  the  alteration  in  the  conception  of  baptism  by  the  confounding  of 
baptism  and  regeneration,  had  already  at  an  early  period  spread  so  widely, 
we  should  so  much  the  more  expect  the  early  introduction  of  infant  bap- 
tism as  the  natural  consequence  of  such  an  alteration.  If  this,  however, 
were  not  the  case,  Ave  might  well  conclude  that  other  powerful  causes 
counteracted  the  influence  of  such  a  change  of  view — one,  some  other  im- 
portant truth  in  the  conception  of  baptism  derived  from  Apostolic  times, 
another,  the  not  yet  suppressed  consciousness  of  the  non-apostolic  institu- 
tion of  infant  baptism. 

We  find,  indeed,  in  one  passage  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  a  trace,  that 
already  the  children  of  Christians  were  distinguished  from  the  children 
of  heathens,  and  considered  in  a  certain  sense  as  belonging  to  the  church  ; 
but  this  is  not  derived  from  their  having  partaken  of  baptism,  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  came  to  pass  is  rather  evidence  against  the  existence 
of  infant  baptism.  The  apostle  is  treating  of  the  sanctifying  influence 
of  the  communion  between  parents  and  children,  by  which  the  children 
of  Christian  parents  would  be  distinguished  from  the  children  of  those 
who  were  not  Christian,  and  in  virtue  of  which  they  might  in  a  certain 
sense  be  termed  "  holy,"  ayia,  in  contrast  with  the  "  unclean,"  aKadapra* 
But  if  infant  baptism  had  been  then  in  existence,  the  epithet  "  holy," 
applied  to  Christian  children,  would  have  been  deduced  only  from  this 
saored  rite  by  which  they  had  become  incorporated  with  the  Christian 
church.  But  in  the  point  of  view  here  taken  by  Paul,  we  find  (although 
it  testifies  against  the  existence  at  that  time  of  infant  baptism)  the  fun- 

*  The  immediate  impressions — which  proceed  from  the  whole  of  the  intercourse  of 
life,  and  by  means  of  the  natural  feeling  of  dependence  of  children  on  their  parents,  pass 
from  the  latter  to  the  former — have  a  far  stronger  hold  than  the  effects  of  instruction,  and 
such  impressions  may  begin  before  the  ability  for  receiving  instruction  in  a  direct  manner 
exists.  These  impressions  attach  themselves  to  the  first  germs  of  consciousness,  and  on 
that  account,  the  commencement  of  this  sanctifying  influence  cannot  be  precisely  deter- 
mined. See  De  Wette's  excellent  remarks  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1839.  Part  iii 
p.  671. 


USAGES   OF   THE   GENTILE   CHKISTMANS.  165 

daraental  idea  from  which  the  practice  was  afterwards  necessarily  de 
veloped,  and  by  which  it  must  be  justified  to  agree  with  Paul's  senti- 
ments :  an  intimation  of  the  preeminence  belonging  to  children  born  in 
a  Christian  community ;  of  the  consecration  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
thereby  granted  to  them ;  and  of  an  immediate  sanctifying  influence 
which  would  communicate  itself  to  their  earliest  development.* 

As  to  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Supper,  it  continued  to  be  connected 
with  the  common  meal,  in  which  all  as  members  of  one  family  joined,  as 
in  the  primitive^  Jewish  church,  and  agreeably  to  its  first  institution.  In 
giving  a  history  of  the  Corinthian  church,  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
speak  of  the  abuses  which  arose  from  the  mixture  of  ancient  Grecian 
customs  with  this  Christian  festival. 

It  is  true  the  publication  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen,  was  desti- 
tute of  those  facilities  for  its  reception,  which  the  long-continued  expec- 
tation of  a  Redeemer  as  the  promised  Messiah  gave  it  among  the  Jews. 
Here  was  no  continuous  succession  of  witnesses  of  the  living,  self-mani- 
festing God,  by  whom  the  gospel  might  be  indicated  and  foretold  as  it 
had  been  by  the  law  and  prophets  among  the  Jews.  Still  the  annuncia- 
tion of  a  Redeemer  found  its  point  of  connexion  in  the  universal  feeling 
adhering  to  the  very  essence  of  human  nature — the  feeling  of  disunion 
and  guilt,  and  as  a  consequence  of  this,  though  not  apprehended  with 
distinctness,  a  longing  after  redemption  from  such  a  condition ;  and  by 
the  mental  development  of  these  nations,  and  their  political  condition  at 
that  period,  sentiments  of  this  kind  were  more  vividly  felt,  while  the 
feeling  of  disunion  (in  man's  own  powers,  and  between  man  and  God) 
was  manifested  in  the  prevailing  tendency  towards  dualistic  views.  The 
youthful  confidence  of  the  old  world  was  constantly  giving  way  to  a 
feeling  of  disunion  and  sadness  excited  by  the  awakening  sense  of  the 
law  written  on  the  heart,  which,  like  the  external  law  given  to  the  Jews, 
was  destined  to  guide  the  Gentiles  to  the  Saviour.  The  gospel  could 
not  here  as  in  its  relation  to  Judaism  be  proclaimed,  as  the  completion 
of  what  already  existed  in  the  popular  religion  ;  it  must  come  forth  as 
the  antagonist  of  what  already  existed,  of  the  heathenish  deification  of 

*  The  words  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  may  be  taken  in  a  twofold  manner.  If  we  understand 
with  De  "Wette,  the  "you,"  ifiuv,  as  applied  to  all  Christians — (which  the  connexion  and 
the  use  of  the  plural  render  probable)— then  the  apostle  infers  that  the  children  of  Chris- 
tians, although  not  incorporated  with  the  church,  nor  yet  baptized,  might  be  called  "holy," 
(which  is  De  Wette's  opinion),  and  thus  what  we  have  remarked  in  the  text  follows  as  a 
necessary  consequence.  But  if  we  admit  that  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  case  of  married 
persons,  in  which  one  party  was  a  Christian,  and  the  other  a  heathen,  and  that  from  the 
sanctification  of  the  children  of  such  a  marriage  he  infers  the  sanctification  of  the  whole 
marriage  relation — which  thought  more  nearly  suits  the  connexion — then  it  would  appear 
that  Paul  deduces  a  sanctification  of  the  children  by  their  connexion  with  the  parents,  but 
not  from  their  baptism,  for  the  baptism  of  children,  in  cases  of  a  mixed  marriage,  could, 
in  many  instances,  be  hardly  performed.  If  infant  baptism  had  at  that  time  been  in  ex- 
istence, he  could  not  have  called  the  children  of  such  a  mixed  marriage  "holy,"  in  the 
same  sense  as  the  baptized  children  of  Christian  pare  its. 


166  CONSTITUTION    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

nature,  and  could  only  attach  itself  to  the  truth  lying  at  the  foundation 
of  this  enormity,  the  sense,  namely,  in  the  human  breast  of  a  hidden, 
unknown  God  ;  it  was  necessary  to  announce  Christianity  as  the  revela- 
tion of  that  God,  in  whom,  indeed,  by  virtue  of  their  divine  origin,  men 
"lived  and  moved  and  had  their  being,"  but  of  whom,  in  consequence 
of  their  estrangement  from  him  by  sin,  they  had  only  a  mysterious  sense 
as  an  unknown  and  distant  Divinity.  Under  this  aspect  it  might  be  rep- 
resented as  a  completion  of  that  which  was  implanted  by  God  in  the 
original  constitution  of  man,  as  the  final  aim  of  this  indistinct  longing. 
The  progressive  development  of  the  religious  consciousness  in  heathen- 
ism,.offers  to  a  discerning  mind  many  adjustments  for  Christianity.  But 
it  was  far  from  the  views  of  Paul  and  of  the  early  proclaimers  of 
the  gospel  generally,  to  look  for  these ;  and  it  would  have  been  of  no 
advantage  in  immediately  operating  on  the  hearts  of  the  heathen.  Also, 
in  relation  to  all  that  was  truly  natural,  belonging  to  the  original  nature 
of  man,  and  not  founded  in  sin,  it  might  be  truly  asserted  that  Christ 
came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  And  here  certainly  the  Gentiles  were 
placed  in  a  more  advantageous  position  than  the  Jews ;  they  were  not 
exposed  to  the  temptation  of  contemplating  Christianity  only  as  the 
completion  of  a  religious  system  already  in  existence,  and  of  disowning 
its  purpose  of  producing  an  entire  transformation  of  the  life  ;  for  to  a 
convert  from  heathenism,  Christianity  presenting  itself  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  all  his  former  religious  views  and  feelings,  must  necessarily 
appear  as  something  altogether  new  and  designed  to  effect  an  entire  rev- 
olution in  his  life.  Meanwhile,  although  Christianity  must  have  at  first 
presented  itself  as  opposed  to  the  existing  elements  of  life  in  heathen- 
ism ;  yet  Christians  who  continued  to  live  in  intercourse  with  heathens 
under  their  old  relations,  were  the  more  exposed,  practically,  to  the  in- 
fection of  a  corrupt  state  of  morals,  till  their  Christian  life  became  firmly 
established.  And  although  the  peculiar  position  of  the  Gentiles  did  not 
expose  them  so  much  as  the  Jews  to  pervert  faith  itself  into  an  opus 
operation,  and  thus  to  misuse  it  as  a  cloak  for  immorality,  still  such  an 
error  might  easily  arise,  if  not  from  the  influence  of  Judaizing  teachers, 
yet  from  the  depraved  condition  of  human  nature  itself.  It  is  evident 
that  Paul  deemed  it  necessary  emphatically  to  guard  and  warn  them 
against  it.* 

Another  danger  of  a  different  kind  threatened  Christianity  when  it 
found  its  way  among  the  educated  classes  in  the  seats  of  Grecian  learn- 
ing. Since  in  these  places  the  love  of  knowledge  predominated,  and 
overruled  all  the  other  fundamental  tendencies  of  human  nature  ;  since 
men  were  disposed  to  cultivate  intellectual  eminence  to  the  neglect  of 
morals,  and  since  Christianity  gave  a  far  wider  scope  than  Heathenism  to 
the  exercise  of  the  mental  powers  ;  since  in  many  respects  it  agreed  with 
those  among  the  Grecian  philosophers,  who  rested  their  opposition  to  the 

*  The  "  vain  words,"  kevoI  ?.6yoi,  against  which  Paul  warns  the  Ephesians.  (v.  6.) 


Paul's  second  missionary  journey.  167 

popular  religions  on  an  ethical  basis  ;  it  consequently  happened,  that  they 
made  Christianity,  contrary  to  its  nature  and  design,  chiefly  an  exercise 
of  the  understanding,  and  aimed  to  convert  it  into  a  philosophy,  thus  sub- 
ordinating the  practical  interest  to  the  theoretical,  and  obscuring  the 
real  genius  of  the  gospel.  The  history  of  the  further  spread  of  Christi- 
anity among  the  heathen,  and  of  individual  churches  founded  among 
them,  will  give  us  an  opportunity  of  developing  this  fact,  and  setting  it 
in  a  clearer  light.  We  now  proceed  to  the  second  missionary  journey  of 
the  apostle  Paul". 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    SECOND    MISSIONARY    JOURNEY    OF   THE    APOSTLE   PAUL. 

After  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  spent  some  time  with  the  church  at 
Antioch,  they  resolved  to  revisit  the  churches  founded  in  the  course  of 
their  former  missionary  journey,  and  then  to  extend  their  labors  still 
further.  Barnabas  wished  to  take  his  nephew  Mark  again  with  them  as 
a  companion,  but  Paul  refused  his  assent  to  this  proposal,  for  he  could 
not  excuse  his  having  allowed  attachment  to  home  to  render  him  unfaith- 
ful to  the  Lord's  service,  and  deemed  one  who  was  not  ready  to  sacrifice 
every  thing  to  this  cause  as  unfitted  for  such  a  vocation.  We  see  on  this 
occasion  the  severe  earnestness  of  Paul's  character,  which  gave  up,  and 
wished  others  to  give  up,  all  personal  considerations  and  feelings  where 
the  cause  of  God  was  concerned  ;  just  as  he  never  allowed  himself  to  be 
tempted  or  seduced  even  by  his  natural  attachment  to  the  nation  to  whom 
he  belonged.*  The  indulgence  shown  by  Barnabas  to  Mark  might  pro- 
ceed either  from  the  peculiar  mildness  of  his  Christian  character,  or  from 
a  regard  to  the  ties  of  relationship  not  yet  sufficiently  controlled  by  the 
power  of  the  Christian  spirit.  That  such  human  attachments  had  still 
too  much  influence  on  Barnabas,  is  shown  by  his  conduct  at  Antioch  on 
the  occasion  of  the  conference  between  Peter  and  Paul.f  Thus  a  sudden 
difference  arose  between  two  men  who  had  hitherto  labored  together  in 
the  work  of  the  Lord,  which  ended  in  their  separation  from  one  another, 
and  thus  it  was  shown,  not  only  that  these  men  of  God  were  not  free 
from  human  weakness,  but  also  that  even  this  contributed  to  the  exten- 
sion of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  for,  in  consequence  of  it,  the  circle  of  their 

*  In  the  "first,"  -rrpurov,  of  Rom.  i.  16,  we.  cannot,  with  Riickert,  find  marks  of  thia 
national  attachment  not  entirely  overcome,  'his  rcp^rov  corresponds  with  the  necessary 
historical  development  of  the  Theocracy.  Th-  supposition  is  also  excluded  by  the  applica- 
tion of  npiJTov  in  Rom.  ii.  9. 

■J-  See  farther  on. 


168  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

labors  was  very  greatly  enlarged ;  Barnabas  now  formed  a  sphere  of 
action  for  himself,  and  first  of  all  visited  with  Mark  his  native  country 
Cyprus,  and  then  most  probably  devoted  himself  to  preach  the  gospel  in 
other  regions.  For,  that  he  remained  in  his  native  country  unemployed 
in  missionary  service,  not  only  his  labors  up  to  this  time  forbid  our  sup- 
posing, but  also  the  terms  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  him  at  a  later  period 
(1  Cor.  ix.  6)  as  a  well-known  and  indefatigable  preacher  of  the  gospel. 
Paul's  severity  towards  Mark  was  probably  of  service  in  leading  him  to 
a  sense  of  his  misconduct,  for  he  afterwards  continued  faithful  to  his  vo- 
cation. This  separation  was  in  the  issue  only  temporary,  for  we  after- 
wards find  Barnabas,  Paul,  and  Mark,  in  close  connexion  with  one 
another,  although  Barnabas  appears  always  to  have  retained  a  separate, 
independent  sphere  of  action.  In  his  stead  Paul  took  Silas  as  his  fellow- 
laborer. 

From  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  it  was  a  fixed  principle  with  Paul, 
as  he  himself  tells  us  in  Rom.  xv.  20,  and  2  Cor.  x.  16,  to  form  his  own 
field  of  labor  for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  and  not  to  trespass  on 
that  of  any  other  person ;  instead,  therefore,  of  betaking  himself  first  to 
Cyprus,  as  on  former  occasions,  he  travelled  through  the  neighboring 
parts  of  Syria  to  Cilicia,  Pisidia,  and  the  towns  in  which  he  had  labored 
on  his  first  journey.  In  the  town  of  Lystra  *  he  found  a  young  man 
named  Timothy,  who,  by  the  instructions  of  his  mother,  a  pious  Jewess, 
but  married  to  a  heathen,  had  received  religious  impressions  which  had 
an  abiding  effect.  His  mother  was  converted  when  Paul  first  visited  that 
town,  and  young  Timothy  also  became  a  zealous  confessor  of  the  gospel. 
The  report  of  his  Christian  zeal  had  spread  to  the  neighboring  town  of 
Iconium.     In  the  church  to  which  he  belonged,  the  voices  of  prophets 

*  I  must  here  differ  from  the  opinion  I  expressed  in  the  first  edition.  In  Acts  xvi.  1, 
the  "there,"  wei,  if  there  are  no  reasons  for  the  contrary,  is  most  naturally  understood  of 
the  place  last  mentioned,  Lystra ;  and  since  the  favorable  testimony  to  his  character  given 
by  the  brethren  at  Lystra  and  Iconium  is  mentioned,  though  it  is  barely  possible  that  the 
testimony  of  persons  living  in  the  nearest  towns  to  his  own  might  have  been  adduced,  yet 
we  may  presume,  with  some  confidence,  that  one  of  these  towns  was  his  native  place ;  for 
it  is  not  probable  that  what  those  who  knew  him  best  said  of  him  would  have  been  passed 
over.  In  Acts  xx.  4,  the  approved  reading  is  rather  for,  than  against  this  supposition :  for 
if  Timothy  had  been  a  native  of  Derbe,  the  predicate  bepfialoc  would  not  have  been  applied 
to  Taiof  alone,  but  Luke  would  have  written  Aepf3alav6l  Tulog  nal  Ti/zodeog  or  Tdiog  ndl 
Ti/xodsoc  beplialoi.  But  it  is  surprising  that,  in  this  passage,  Timothy  stands  alone  without 
the  mention  of  his  native  place,  and  that  in  Acts  xix.  29,  Aristarchus  and  Gaius  are  named 
together  as  Macedonians  and  companions  of  Paul.  Hence  it  might  be  presumed  that  the 
predicate  Leppaloq  had  been  misplaced,  and  ought  to  stand  with  Timothy's  name.  Aris- 
tarchus, Secundus  and  Gaius  would  then  be  named  as  natives  of  Thessalonica,  and 
Timothy  of  Derbe.  But  if  we  adopt  this  view,  then  Acts  xvi.  1,  2,  must  be  differently 
explained.  But  still  it  is  not  probable  that  the  more  easy  reading  could  be  altogether 
removed  to  make  -yay  for  one  more  difficult.  So  common  a  name  as  Gaius  might  easily 
belong  to  a  Christian  at  Derbe  and  to  another  from  Macedonia,  as  we  find  it  borne  also 
by  an  approved  Christian  residing  at  Corinth,  Rom.  xvi.  23,  1  Cor.  i.  14 ;  and  Timothy's 
native  place  might  have  been  omitted  because  he  was  the  best  known  of  all  Paul's  associatea 


PAUL  S   SECOND   MISSIONARY   JOURNEY.  1G9 

announced  that  he  was  destined  to  be  a  distinguished  agent  in  spreading 
the  gospel. 

It  was  agreeable  to  Paul  to  have  a  zealous  youth  with  him,  who  could 
assist  him  on  his  missionary  journeys,  and  be  trained  for  a  preacher  un- 
der his  direction.  He  seconded  the  voices  that  thus  called  on  Timothy, 
and  the  young  man  himself  was  prepared  by  his  love  to  their  common 
Lord  to  accompany  his  faithful  servant  every  where.  As  by  his  descent 
and  education  he  belonged  on  one  side  to  the  Jews,  and  on  the  other  to 
the  Gentiles,  he-  was  the  more  fitted  to  be  the  companion  of  the  apostle 
among  both.  And  in  order  to  bring  him  nearer  the  former,  Paul  caused 
him  to  be  circumcised,  by  which  he  yielded  none  of  the  publicly  acknowl- 
edged rights  of  the  Gentile  Christians;  for  being  the  son  of  a  Jewess, 
and  educated  in  Judaism,  he  could  with  more  propriety  be  claimed  by 
the  Jews. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  Dr.  Baur,  that  such  conduct  would  have  been 
a  contradiction  of  Paul's  principles,  and  therefore  that  this  account  is  un- 
historical,  and  that  the  fabrication  owes  its  origin  to  the  conciliatory 
aims  of  the  author  of  the  Acts.  But  we  can  see  no  proofs  whatever  of 
this  contradiction.  The  same  Paul  who  so  strenuously  opposed  the  cir- 
cumcising of  Titus,  because  it  would  have  seemed  a  practical  confirma- 
tion of  the  principle  that  a  participation  in  all  the  privileges  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  depended  on  circumcision — this  same  Paul  could  yet  allow 
Timothy,  the  son  of  a  Jewess,  and  brought  up  in  Judaism,  to  be  circum- 
cised, in  order  thereby  to  procure  an  easier  entrance  for  him  among  the 
Jews ;  and  as  here  circumcision  was  founded  on  descent,  it  could  not  be 
made  use  of  to  justify  a  dogmatic  conclusion,  as  might  have  been  the 
case  with  the  circumcision  of  a  Gentile.*  And  as  regards  generally  the 
conduct  which  is  often  ascribed  to  Paid  in  the  Acts — that  among  the 
Jews  he  observed  Jewish  practices,  and  lived  altogether  as  a  Jew  ;  we 
believe  in  this  respect,  as  well  as  in  others,  it  can  be  shown  that  what 
the  apostle  himself  asserts  in  his  Epistles  concerning  his  mode  of  acting, 
leads  us  to  look  for  such  examples  of  conduct  as  are  recorded  in  the  Acts. 
What  are  we  to  understand,  when  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  ix.  20,  that  'to 
the  Jews  he  became  a  Jew  in  order  to  gain  the  Jews,  to  them  that  are 
under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  that  he  might  gain  them  that  are  under 
the  law  ?"  Must  we  not  from  such  words  conclude,  that  he,  without 
prejudice  to  his  inward  freedom  from  the  Law,  believed  that  in  the  out- 
ward observance  of  it  he  could  place  himself  on  a  level  with  the  Jews — 
that  he  felt  himself  compelled  so  to  act  in  order  to  pave  the  way  more 
easily  to  the  hearts  of  the  Jews,  whom  he  wished  to  gain  over  to  the 
gospel  ?     Are  they  not  exactly  such  acts  as  gave  his  Jewish  adversaries 

*  The  expression  used  in  the  Acts  itself  (xvi.  3)  is  not  at  all  what  it  would  be,  had  the 
design  been  to  set  Paul  in  a  favorable  light  to  the  religious  prejudices  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians. There  is  expressly  designated  only  an  ouhvard  accommodation  to  the  Jewish 
point  of  view.    Surely  such  a  design  would  have  manifested  itself  in  quite  a  different  way. 


170  PAUJ-'S    SECOND    MISSIONARY   JOUENEY. 

the  opportunity  to  set  his  conduct  in  a  false  light  hefore  the  Gentiles, 
and  to  accuse  him  of  inconsistency?  Certainly,  from  what  we  find  in 
the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  assume 
that  he  acted  exactly  as  we  are  told  was  the  case  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
ties.  We  make  these  remarks  here  once  for  all,  in  order  not  to  return 
again  to  this  ground  of  suspicion  against  the  Acts. 

After  Paul  had  visited  the  churches  already  founded  in  this  district, 
he  proceeded  to  Phrygia.  Of  course  he  could  not,  either  on  this  or  on 
a  later  journey,  publish  the  gospel  in  all  the  threescore  and  two*  towns 
of  the  populous  province  of  Phrygia.  He  must  have  left  much  to  be  ac- 
complished by  his  pupils,  such,  for  instance,  as  Epaphras  at  Colossse,  who 
afterwards  founded  a  church  there  and  in  the  towns  of  Hierapolis  and 
Laodicea.f     Thence  he  directed  his  course  northward  to  Galatia.     As 

*  This  is  the  number  stated  in  the  sixth  century  by  Hierocles,  author  of  the  ZvveKd-njuoc, 
or  a  "  Traveller's  Companion,"  which  gives  an  account  of  the  provinces  and  towns  of  the 
Eastern  Empire. 

f  I  cannot  agree  with  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Schulz,  brought  forward  in  the  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  vol.  ii.  part  3,  which  is  also  advocated  by  Dr.  Schott  iu  his  Isagoge,  that  Paul 
himself  was  the  founder  of  these  churches.  I  cannot  persuade  myself  that,  if  the  Colos- 
sians  and  Laodiceans  had  received  the  gospel  from  the  lips  of  the  apostle,  he  would  have 
placed  them  in  the  same  category,  without  an}'  distinction,  with  those  who  were  not  per- 
sonally known  to  him,  as  we  find  in  Coloss.  ii.  1 ;  since,  iu  reference  to  his  anxiety  for  the 
churches,  it  certainly  made  an  important  difference  whether  he  himself  had  founded  them 
or  not.  The  "as  many,"  oaoi  would  have  been  used  too  indefinitely,  if  its  meaning  had 
not  been  fixed  by  what  preceded ;  from  which  it  appears,  that  those  churches  of  Phrygia 
are  referred  to,  which,  like  the  churches  at  Colossse  and  Laodicea,  had  not  been  founded 
by  Paul  himself.  And  how  can  it  be  supposed  that,  in  an  epistle  to  a  church  founded  by 
himself,  he  would  never  appeal  to  what  they  had  heard  from  his  own  lips,  but  only  to  the 
announcement  of  the  gospel  which  they  had  heard  from  others?  and  that  he  should  speak 
not  of  what  he  himself  had  seen  and  heard  among  them,  but  only  of  what  had  been  re- 
ported to  him  by  others  respecting  their  state  ?  The  concise,  elegant  and  acute  remarks 
of  Prof.  Wiggers,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1838,  part  i.  p.  171,  have  not  induced  me 
to  alter  my  opinion  on  this  point.  The  explanation  he  gives  of  the  words  in  Coloss.  ii.  1, 
"also  for  those  (among  the  Christians  in  Colossas  and  Laodicea)  who  have  not  known  me 
personalty,"  appears  to  me  not  so  natural  as  the  common  one,  which  I  follow.  If  Paul 
had  intended  to  say  this,  he  would  hardly  have  failed  to  limit  "as  many,"  oaoi,  by  adding 
"of  you,"  vfiuv.  If  the  "  also,"  ical,  in  1,  7  is  also  to  be  retained,  yet  I  do  not  find  any 
intimation  conveyed  by  it  that  they  had  received  instruction  from  another  teacher,  but 
only  that  they  had  received  from  Epaphras  the  same  gospel  of  the  divine  grace  which  had 
been  published  throughout  the  world.  But,  from  external  evidence,  I  cannot  help  con- 
sidering the  /cat  as  suspicious ;  especially  since  the  frequent  repetition  of  it  in  what 
precedes,  and  the  observable  reference  to  v.  6,  might  easily  occasion  the  insertion  of  it. 
But  if  the  Kal  is  spurious,  it  appears  much  more  clearly  that  Epaphras,  not  Paul,  was 
the  teacher  of  this  church.  He  is  called  a  servant  of  Christ  in  Paul's  stead  (vn-?p  TjfiHv 
Siukovoc),  because  Paul  had  given  over  to  him  the  office  of  proclaiming  the  gospel  in  the 
three  cities  of  Phrygia  which  he  himself  could  not  visit.  It  is  not  clear  to  me  that  Paul, 
in  ii.  5,  could  not  have  used  the  word  unci/ii  to  denote  his  bodily  absence  in  opposition  to 
his  spiritual  presence  among  them,  although  he  did  not  mean  that  he  had  been  once 
among  them,  and  was  now  removed  to  a  distance  from  them.  It  still  appears  to  me  re- 
markable, that — if  he  wrote  some  years  after  his  presence  among  them — there  should  be 


Paul's  second  missionary  journey.  171 

many  Jews  resided  in  this  province,  he  addressed  himself  probably  first 
to  these,  and  to  the  proselytes  who  worshipped  with  them  in  the  syna- 
gogues. But  the  ill-treatment  he  met  with  among  the  Jews  prepared  an 
opening  for  him  to  the  Gentiles,  by  whom  he  was  received  with  great 
affection. 

Paul  had  to  maintain  a  severe  conflict  with  bodily  suffering,  as  appears 
from  many  allusions  in  his  epistles,  where  he  speaks  of  his  being  given 
up  to  a  sense  of  human  weakness.  Nor  is  this  surprising,  for  as  a  Phar- 
isee, striving  after  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  he  had  certainly  not 
spared  his  own  body.  After  he  had  found  salvation  by  faith  in  the  Re- 
deemer, and  had  attained  the  freedom  of  the  evangelical  spirit,  he  was, 
it  is  true,  very  far  from  a  tormenting  castigation  of  his  body,  and  from 
legal  dependence  on  works ;  he  expresses  the  most  decided  opposition 
to  everything  of  the  kind,  in  words  which  exhibit  a  spirit  which,  while 
it  was  independent  of  all  outward  circumstances  and  things,  yet  freely 
subordinated  and  appropriated  all  that  was  external,  to  a  higher  object. 
Such  are  those  memorable  words  which  testify  such  consciousness  of  true 
freedom  :  "  I  know  both  how  to  be  abased,  and  I  know  how  to  abound, 
everywhere  and  in  all  things;  I  am  instructed  both  to  be  full  and  to  be 
hungry,  both  to  abound  and  to  suffer  need.  I  can  do  all  things  through 
Christ  that  strengthened  me."  Phil.  iv.  12,  13.  But  his  new  voca- 
tion allowed  him  still  less  to  spare  himself,  since  he  labored  hard  with 
his  own  hands  for  a  livelihood,  at  the  same  time  that  he  exerted  his 
powers  both  of  mind  and  body  to  the  utmost  in  his  apostolic  ministry  ; 
since  also  he  had  so  many  dangers  to  undergo,  so  many  hardships  and 
sufferings  to  endure,  under  Which  a  weak  body  might  soon  sink.  Yet 
with  the  sense  of  human  weakness,  the  consciousness  waxed  stronger  of 
a  might  surpassing  all  human  power,  a  divine  all-conquering  energy 
which  proved  its  efficiency  in  his  proclamation  of  the  gospel  and  in  his 
call  to  the  work  ;  and  he  could  perfectly  distinguish  this  divine  power 
from  all  merely  human  endowments.  Under  a  sense  of  human  weak- 
ness he  became  raised  above  himself,  by  that  inward  glory  which 
beamed  upon  him  in  those  communications  of  a  higher  world  with 
which  he  was  honored.  He  considered  a  peculiarly  oppressive  pain 
which  constantly  attended  him,f  and  checked  the  soaring  of  his  exalted 

no  allusion  to  bis  personal  intercourse  with  them,  especially  in  an  epistle  to  a  church 
which  was  in  so  critical  a  state ;  to  whom  it  was  so  important  to  evince  his  love  and  care 
for  them,  and  to  exhort  faithfully  to  keep  the  instructions  they  had  received  from  him ; 
also,  if  it  concerned  him  to  commend  Epaphras  to  them  as  the  person  who  was  to  carry 
on  the  work  which  he  had  begun,  he  would  so  much  the  more  have  stated  explicitly,  that 
Epaphras  taught  no  other  doctrine  than  that  which  they  had  at  first  received  from  himself, 
that  he  would  only  raise  the  superstructure  on  the  foundation  laid  by  himself. 

f  I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think  that  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7,  where  he  alludes  to 
something  that  constantly  tormented  him  like  a  piercing  thorn  which  a  person  carries 
about  in  his  body,  only  intended  to  signify  his  numerous  opponents.  Certainly  we  oacnot 
De  justified  in  saying,  that  Paul  meant  nothiug  else  '  lan  what  he  mentions  in  the  10th 


172  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

spirit,  as  an  admonition  to  humility  given  him  by  God,  as  a  counterpoise 
to  those  moments  of  inward  glorification  which  were  vouchsafed  him. 
And  he  informs  us,  that  after  he  had  prayed  thrice  to  the  Lord,  to  free 
him  from  this  oppressive  pain,  an  answer  by  a  divine  voice,  either  in 
vision  or  in  pure  inward  consciousness,  was  granted  him,  that  he  must 
not  desire  to  be  freed  from  that  which  deepened  the  sense  of  his  human 
weakness,  but  must  be  satisfied  with  the  consciousness  of  the  divine 
grace  imparted  to  him;  for  the  power  of  God  proved  itself  to  be  truly 
such,  even  in  the  midst  of  human  weakness. 

He  experienced  the  truth  of  this,  especially  during  his  ministry  in 
Galatia.  His  body  was  bowed  down  through  debility,  but  the  divine 
power  of  liis  words  and  works,  in  such  striking  contrast  with  the  feeble- 
ness of  the  material  organ,  made  a  powerful  impression  on  susceptible 
dispositions.  The  glowing  zeal  of  self-sacrificing  love  which  amidst  his 
own  sufferings  enabled  him  to  bear  everything  so  joyfully  for  the  salva- 
tion of  others,  must  have  attracted  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  with  the 
greater  force,  and  excited  that  ardent  attachment  to  his  person  which  he 
so  vividly  describes  in  Gal.  iv.  14.  "Ye  received  me  as  an  angel  of 
God,  even  as  Jesus  Christ." 

The  Galatian  churches  were  formed  of  a  stock  of  native  Gentiles ; 
partly,  of  a  great  number  of  Proselytes,  for  whom  Judaism  had  become 
the  tr.insition-point  to  Christianity,  and  partly,  of  persons  who  had  passed 
immediately  from  heathenism  to  Christianity ;  and  with  this  Gentile 
stock  of  the  church,  some  Jews  also  connected  themselves,  who  were 
distinguished  from  the  great  mass  of  their  unbelieving  countrymen  by 
their  susceptibility  for  the  gospel.  But  by  former  Proselytes  and  the 
Jewish  Christians  in  the  churches,  an  intercourse  with  the  Jews  was 
kept  up,  and  hence  arose  those  disturbances  of  which  we  shall  presently 
speak. 

On  leaving  Galatia,  Paul  was  at  first  uncertain  in  what  direction  to 
turn,  since  new  fields  of  labor  opened  to  him  on  different  sides.  At  one 
time,  he  thought  of  going  in  a  south-westerly  direction,  to  Proconsular 
Asia,  and  afterwards  of  passing  in  a  northerly  direction  to  Mysia  and 
Bithynia ;  but  either  by  an  inward  voice  or  by  a  vision  he  received  a  mo- 
nition from  the  Divine  Spirit,  which  caused  him  to  abandon  both  these 
plans.  Having  formed  an  intention  of  passing  over  to  Europe,  but  wait- 
verse  ;  for  in  this  latter  passage,  he  only  applies  the  general  truth — which  the  divine  voice 
had  assured  him  of  in  reference  to  the  particular  object  before  mentioned — to  everything 
which  might  contribute  to  render  him  sensible  of  his  human  weakness.  This  application 
of  the  principle,  and  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  Paul,  lead  us  to  suppose  that  he  meant  to 
indicate  something  purely  specific  in  the  first  passage.  "We  cannot  indeed  suppose  that 
he  would  pray  to  be  delivered  from  such  sufferings  as  were  essentially  and  indissolubly 
connected  with  his  vocation.  But  we  must  conclude  that  his  prayers  referred  to  some- 
thing altogether  personal,  which  affected  him  not  as  an  apostle,  but  as  Paul ;  though  it 
would  be  absurd,  in  the  total  absence  of  all  distinguishing  marks,  to  attempt  to  determine 
exactly  what  it  waa. 


PAUL   AT   PHILIPPI.  175 

ing  to  see  whether  he  should  be  withheld  or  encouraged  by  a  higher 
guidance,  he  betook  himself  to  Troas ;  and  a  nocturnal  vision,  in  which 
a  Macedonian  appeared  calling  in  behalf  of  his  nation  for  his  aid,  con- 
firmed his  resolution  to  visit  Macedonia.  If  we  admit  that  Luke*  speaks 
in  his  own  name  in  Acts  xvi.  10,  it  would  follow  that  Paul  first  met  with 
him  again  at  Troas,  and  received  him  into  the  company  of  his  missionary 
associates.  His  medical  skill  might  have  been  very  useful  to  gain  an 
opening  for  publishing  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  as  we  now  find  it 
in  modern  missions  to  the  heathen.  The  "gift  of  healing"  would  not 
have  rendered  this  useless;  since  that  gift  was  applicable  only  in  particu- 
lar cases  where  its  possessors  were  prompted  to  employ  it  by  an  imme- 
diate Divine  impulse,  or  by  a  spontaneous  movement  of  their  feelings. 
But  the  case  will  be  different,  if  we  admit  that  the  account  in  chapter  xvi. 
10,  was  taken  unaltered  from  the  journal  of  Timothy,  and  therefore  that 
he  is  the  speaker  who  describes  himself  as  one  of  Paul's  companions  in 
the  publication  of  the  gospel.     ' 

The  first  Macedonian  city  in  which  he  stayed  was  Philippi,  a  place  of 
some  importance.  The  number  of  Jews  here  was  not  sufficient  to  enable 
them  to  establish  a  synagogue.  Probably  there  were  only  Proselytes, 
who  had  a  place  for  assembling,  surrounded  with  trees,  on  the  outside  of 
the  city,  near  the  banks  of  the  Strymon,  where  they  performed  their 
devotions  and  the  necessary  lustrations,  a  so-called  irpooevx^.f  If  ad- 
dresses founded  on  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  were  not  delivered 
here  as  in  the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  if  Paul  could  not  avail  himself  of 
such  a  custom  for  publishing  the  gospel ;  still  the  Proselytes  (especially 
females)  assembled  here  on  the  Sabbath  for  prayer,  and  he  would  here 
meet  those  who  were  in  a  state  of  the  greatest  preparation  and  suscep- 
tibility for  what  he  wished  to  communicate.  Accordingly,  early  in  the 
morning  on  the  Sabbath,  he  resorted  thither  with  his  companions,  to  hold 
a  conversation  on  religious  topics  with. the  women  of  the  city  who  were 
assembled  for  prayer.  His  words  made  an  impression  on  the  heart  of 
Lydia,  a  dealer  in  purple  from  the  town  of  Thyatira  in  Lydia.  At  the 
conclusion  of  the  service,  she  and  her  whole  family  were  baptized  by 
him,  and  compelled  him  to  take  up  his  abode,  with  his  companions,  in 
her  house.};    From  the  family  of  Lydia  Christianity  spread  farther  among 

*  A  physician  according  to  Coloss.  iv.  14,  perhaps  one  of  the  Proselytes  of  the  gate 
converted  by  Paul  at  Antioch. 

\  The  expression  in  Acts  xvi.  13,  "where1  was  wont,"  ov  ho/xl^ero,  makes  it  probabie 
that  this  npoaevxv  was  not  a  building,  but  only  an  enclosed  place  in  the  open  air,  which 
was  usually  applied  to  this  purpose :  compare  Tertullian,  ad  Naliones,  i.  13,  "  The  Orationes 
Litorales  of  the  Jews,"  and  De  Jejuniis,  c.  16,  where  he  speaks  of  the  widely-spread  inter- 
est taken  by  the  heathen  in  the  Jewish  feasts;  "Judaicum  certe  jejunium  ubique  celebra- 
tur,  quum  omissis  templis  per  omne  litus  quocunque  in  aperto  aliquando  jam  prcces  ad 
ccelum  mittunt."  (The  Jewish  fast  is  everywhere  celebrated,  when,  temples  being  ne- 
glected, along  the  shore  in  any  open  place  whatever,  they  send  up  their  prayers  to  heaven.) 

\  I  can  by  no  means  admit,  with  some  expositors  of  the  Acts,  that  all  this  took  place 
before  the  beginning  of  tie  public  exercises  of  devotion,  and  that  on  the  same  day,  aa 


114  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

the  inhabitants  of  the  city,  and  her  house  became  the  first  place  of  as- 
sembly for  the  believers.  As  in  this  town  there  were  few  or  no  Jews, 
the  adherents  of  Judaism  consisted  only  of  proselytes ;  thus  Christianity 
met  in  this  quarter  wyith  no  obstinate  resistance ;  and  it  would  have  prob- 
ably gained  a  still  greater  number  of -adherents,  without  incurring  the 
risk  of  persecution,  if  opposition  had  not  been  excited  by  certain  indi- 
viduals among  the  Gentiles,  whose  pecuniary  interests  were  injured  by 
the  operation  of  the  divine  doctrine. 

There  was  a  female  slave,  who,  in  a  state  resembling  the  phenomena 
of  somnambulism,*  was  accustomed  to  answer  unconsciously  questions 
prop.osed  to  her,  and  was  esteemed  to  be  a  prophetess  inspired  by  Apol- 
lo ;f  for  in  all  the  forms  of  heathenish  idolatry,  the  hidden  powers  of 
nature  were  taken  into  the  service  of  religion. J  This  slave  had  proba- 
bly frequent  opportunities  of  hearing  Paul,  and  his  words  had  left  an 
impression  on  her  heart.  In  her  convulsive  fits,  these  impressions  were 
revived,  and  mingling  what  she  had  heard  from  Paul  with  her  own 
heathenish  notions,  she  frequently  followed  the  preachers  when  on  their 
way  to  the  Proseuche,  exclaiming,  "  These  men  are  the  servants  of  the 
Most  High  God,  who  show  unto  us  the  way  of  salvation."     This  testi- 

they  were  returning  from  the  place  where  Paul  baptized  Lydia,  the  meeting  with  the 
prophetess  occurred  on  their  way  to  the  Proseuche.  Luke's  narrative  in  Aots  xvi.  16, 
does  not  indicate  that  all  these  events  took  place  on  one  day.  The  assertions  of  the 
prophetess  make  it  probable  that  she  had  often  heard  Paul  speak. 

*  Even  if  we  were  not  in  a  position  fully  to  understand  from  the  representation  given 
in  the  Acts,  the  incident  here  narrated,  yet  we  should  not  be  justified  in  regarding  it 
with  Baur  as  a  designed  fabrication,  with  which  everything  else  in  the  character  of  this 
book  is  at  variance.  Do  we  not  find  in  history  many  an  enigmatical  appearance  which 
yet  gives  us  no  right  to  call  in  question  the  truth  of  a  narrative?  "We  see  no  reason  in 
all  that  Baur  says,  that  can  induce  us  to  surrender  our  view  of  the  matter.  "We  recognise 
the  same  principle  acting  in  this  prophetess  as  in  the  fiavriKT)  of  the  ancients,  and  in  their 
oracles,  in  which  certainly  not  everything  can  be  accounted  as  a  deception.  That  from 
our  well-established  position,  which  is  neither  that  of  crude  supcrnaturalism,  nor  that  of 
Dr.  Baur's  rationalism,  we  are  fully  justified  in  distinguishing  between  the  objective  and 
subjective  in  the  account,  we  need  not  point  out  after  the  foregoing  investigations. 

\  On  the  common  notion  of  the  people,  that  the  Pythian  Apollo  took  possession  of 
such  kyyaorpifivdovc  or  nvduvac,  and  spoke  through  their  mouth,  see  Plutarch,  De  Def, 
Oracular,  c.  9.  Tertullian  describes  such  persons,  Apologet.  c.  23,  "qui  de  Deo  pati  existi- 
mantur,  qui  anhelando  "  (i.  e.,  in  a  state  of  convulsive  agony,  in  which  the  person  feels 
himself  powerfully  impelled  as  by  a  strange  spirit,  with  a  hollow  voice)  "  praefautur." 

\  Thus  the  oracles  of  the  ancients,  the  incubations,  and  similar  phenomena  in  the 
heathenism  of  the  Society  Isles  in  the  South  Sea.  The  Priest  of  Oro,  the  God  of  War, 
uttered  oracles  in  an  ecstatic  state  of  violent  convulsions,  and,  after  his  conversion  to 
Christianity,  could  not  again  put  himself  in  such  a  state.  See,  on  this  subject,  the  late 
interesting  accounts  of  this  mission  by  Ellis,  Bennet,  etc.  In  contradiction  to  Baur's  in- 
terpretation of  my  words,  I  must  remark,  that  I  have  made  this  comparison  by  no  means 
in  reference  to  the  effects  resulting  from  a  conversion — that  I  by  no  means  assumed  that 
the  female  in  question,  by  her  conversion,  had  lost  the  capability  of  putting  herself  intc 
such  a  condition ;  but  my  only  point  of  comparison  was  this,  that,  generally,  that  capabil 
ity  might  be  lost. 


PAUL   AT   PHILIPPI.  175 

mony  of  a  prophetess  so  admired  by  the  people  might  have  availed  much 
to  draw  their  attention  to  the  new  doctrine ;  but  it  was  very  foreign 
from  Paul's  disposition  to  employ  or  endure  such  a  mixture  of  truth  and 
falsehood.  At  first,  he  did  not  concern  himself  about  the  exclamations 
of  the  slave.  But  as  she  persisted,  he  at  last  turned  to  her,  and  com- 
manded the  spirit  which  held  her  rational  and  moral  powers  in  bondage, 
to  come  out  of  her.  If  this  was  not  a  personal  evil  spirit,  still  it  was  the 
ascendancy  of  an  ungodly  spirit.  That  wbjch  constitutes  man  a  free 
agent,  and  which  ought  to  rule  over  the  tendencies  and  powers  of  his 
nature,  was  here  held  in  subjection  to  them.*  And  by  the  divine  power 
of  that  Saviour  who  had  restored  peace  and  harmony  to  the  distracted 
souls  of  demoniacs,  this  woman  was  also  rescued  from  the  power  of  such 
an  ungodlike  spirit,  and  could  never  again  be  brought  into  that  state. 
When,  therefore,  the  slave  could  no  longer  practise  her  arts  of  sooth- 
saying, her  masters  saw  themselves  deprived  of  the  gains  which  they  had 
hitherto  obtained  from  this  source.  Enraged,  they  seized  Paul  and  Silas, 
and  accused  them  before  the  civil  authorities,  the  Duumvirs,f  as  turbu- 


*  "We  have  no  certain  marks  which  will  enable  us  to  determine  in  what  light  Paul 
viewed  the  phenomenon.  It  might  be  (though  we  cannot  decide  with  certainty)  that  he 
gave  to  the  heathen  notion,  that  the  spirit  of  Apollo  animated  this  person,  a  Jewish  form, 
that  an  evil  spirit  or  demon  possessed  her.  In  this  case,  he  followed  the  universally 
received  notion,  without  reflecting  at  the  moment  any  further  upon  it,  for  this  subject 
belonging  to  the  higher  philosophy  of  nature,  was  far  from  his  thoughts.  He  directed  his 
attention  only  to  the  moral  grounds  of  the  phenomenon.  I  am  convinced  that  the  Spirit 
of  truth  who  was  promised  to  him  as  an  apostle,  guided  him  in  this  instance  to  the  know- 
ledge of  all  the  truth  which  Christ  appeared  on  earth  to  announce,  to  a  knowledge  of 
every  thing  essential  to  the  doctrine  of  salvation.  By  this  Spirit  he  discerned  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  reign  of  evil  in  this  phenomenon  ;  and  if  an  invisible  power  also  is  here 
thought  to  be  operating,  yet  what  is  natural  in  the  causes  and  symptoms  is  not  thereby 
excluded,  even  as  the  natural  does  not  exclude  the  supernatural.  Compare  the  admirable 
remarks  of  my  friend  Twesten  in  the  second  volume  of  his  Dogmatik,  p.  355,  and  what  is 
said  on  demoniacs  in  my  Life  of  Christ.  This  Spirit  gave  Paul  the  confident  belief,  that  aa 
Christ  had  conquered  and  rendered  powerless  the  kingdom  of  evil,  so  by  his  divine  power 
every  thing  which  belonged  to  this  kingdom  might  henceforth  be  overcome.  In  this  faith, 
he  spoke  full  of  divine  confidence,  and  his  word  took  effect  in  proportion  to  his  faith.  But 
in  the  words  of  Christ,  and  the  declarations  of  the  apostle  respecting  him,  I  find  no  ground 
for  admitting,  that  with  this  light  of  his  Christian  consciousness,  an  error  in  a  question 
which  did  not  affect  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  but  belonged  to  a  different  and  lower  depart- 
ment of  knowledge  could  by  no  possibility  have  existed ;  a  question,  such  as  whether  we 
aro  to  consider  this  as  a  phenomenon  explicable  from  the  nature  of  the  human  soul,  its  na- 
tural powers  and  connexion  with  a  bodily  organization,  or  an  effect  of  a  possession  by  a 
personal  evil  spirit.  What  Dr.  Banr  has  said  against  the  view  I  have  taken  of  this  trans- 
action, may  appear  well-founded  from  the  stand-point  of  his  arbitrary  aut-aut,  which  is  very 
convenient  to  this  whole  party  for  the  contradiction  of  what  will  not  suit  their  presuppo- 
sitions, but  which  will  be  at  once  dismissed  by  those  who  take  the  trouble  to  enter  into 
the  connexion  of  the  idea  presented. 

f  The  name  aTpaTrjyot  which  is  used  in  the  Acts  to  designate  these  magistrates,  was 
anciently  employed  in  the  smaller  Greek  cities  t:>  designa'o  the  supreme  authorities.  See 
Aristotles  Politic,  L  vii.  c.  3,  ed.  Bekker,  vol.  ii.  p  1322,   '  'n  thtee  small  cities  there  was 


11Q  Paul's  secoxd  missionary  journey. 

lent  Jews,  who  were  attempting  to  introduce  Jewish  religious  practicea 
into  the  Roman  colony,  which  was  contrary  to  the  Roman  laws,  though 
the  right  was  guaranteed  to  the  Jews  of  practising  their  national  cultus 
for  themselves  without  molestation.  After  they  had  been  publicly 
scourged  without  further  examination,  they  were  cast  into  prison.  The 
feeling  of  public  ignominy  and  of  bodily  pain,  confinement  in  a  gloomy 
prison,  where  their  feet  were  stretched  in  a  painful  manner,  and  fastened 
in  the  stocks  (nervus),*  and  the  expectation  of  the  ill-treatment  which 
might  yet  await  them — all  this  could  not  depress  their  souls  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  were  rather  elevated  by  the  consciousness  that  they  were 
enduring  reproach  and  pain  for  the  cause  of  Christ.  About  midnight 
they  united  in  offering  prayer  and  praise  to  God,f  when  an  earthquake 
shook  the  walls  of  their  prison.  The  doors  flew  open,  and  the  fetters  of 
the  prisoners  were  loosened.  The  keeper  of  the  prison  was  seized  with 
the  greatest  alarm,  believing  that  the  prisoners  had  escaped ;  but  Paul 
and  Silas  calmed  his  fears.  This  earthquake  which  gave  the  prisoners  an 
opportunity  of  recovering  their  liberty — their  refusing  to  avail  themselves 
of  this  opportunity — their  serenity  and  confidence  under  so  many  suffer- 
ings— all  combined  to  make  them  appear  in  the  eyes  of  the  astonished 
jailor  as  beings  of  a  higher  order.  He  fell  at  their  feet,  and  calling  to 
mind  what  he  had  heard  from  the  lips  of  Paid  and  Silas  respecting  the 
way  of  salvation  announced  by  them,  addressed  them  in  their  own  words : 
what  then  must  he  do  to  attain  salvation  ?  His  whole  family  assembled 
to  hear  the  answer,  and  it  was  a  joyful  morning  for  all.  Whether  the 
Duumvirs  had  become  more  favorably  disposed  by  what  they  had  learnt 
in  the  mean  time  respecting  the  prisoners,  or  that  the  jailor's  report  had 
made  an  impression  upon  them,  they  authorized  him  to  say  that  Paul  and 
Silas  might  depart.J     Had  any  thing  fanatical  mingled  with  that  blessed 

one  ruler  for  everything,  called  chief  magistrate  (strategos)  and  polemarch  :"  (iv  ralg 
uiKpalc  TToAeat  /iia  nepl  ttuvtuv  (upxv)'  Kalovai  61  arpaTTfyovc  /cat  noXefiupxovr.) 

*  Tertullian  ad  Marytres,  c.  2.  "  The  foot  feels  nothing  in  the  stocks  when  the  soul  is 
in  heaven."     (Nihil  crus  sentit  in  nervo,  quum  animus  in  ccelo  est.) 

f  I  must  deny  the  charge  brought  against  me  by  Baur,  p.  151,  that  I  have  violently 
perverted  the  words  of  the  Acts,  where  the  earthquake  is  represented  as  the  effect  of 
prayer.  I  have  to  do  here  only  with  the  historical,  perceptible  connexion  of  causes.  The 
effect  of  prayer  lies  beyond  this;  but  it  need  not  exclude  a  natural  connexion  of  causes. 
"When  a  result  is  presented  as  the  effect  of  prayer,  nothing  is  thereby  determined  as  to 
how  the  result  was  procured,  whether  God  worked  through  natural  causes,  or  by  a  miracle. 
From  the  point  of  view  with  which  I  have  here  to  do,  neither  prayer,  nor  still  less  the  effect 
procured  by  prayer,  comes  properly  under  notice. 

\  According  to  Baur,  p.  152,  the  person  who  fabricated  this  narrative  in  order  to  exalt 
the  apostle  Paul  above  Peter,  wished  it  to  be  understood,  that  only  the  impression  of  the 
earthquake  as  a  supernatural  evidence  of  the  innocence  of  the  prisoners  had  induced  the 
Duumvirs  to  act  as  they  did,  which,  if  it  were  so,  would  certainly  be  an  internal  mark  of 
improbability.  But  truly,  whoever  made  it  his  business  so  to  magnify  his  heroes,  and  tc 
set  everything  in  the  light  of  the  wonderful,  would  not  have  expressed  himself  so  vaguely 
that  a  reader  could  only  guess  at  such  a  connexion,  but  would  have  set  the  point  of  view 
in  which  the  transaction  was  to  be  regarded,  distinctly  before  his  readers. 


PAUL    AT   PHILIPPI.  1*77 

inspiration  which  enabled  Paul  to  endure  all  shame  and  all  suffering  for 
the  cause  of  the  Lord,  he  certainly  would  have  done  nothing  to  escape 
disgrace,  though  it  might  have  been  without  injury  and  to  the  advantage 
of  his  calling,  or  to  obtain  an  apology  to  which  his  civil  privileges 
entitled  him,  for  the  unmerited  treatment  he  had  received.  How  far 
were  his  sentiments  from  what  in  later  times  the  morals  of  monkery  have 
called  humility  !  Appealing  to  his  civil  rights,*  he  obliged  the  Duum- 
irs,  who  were  not  justified  in  treating  a  Roman  citizenf  so  ignomini- 
ously,  to  come  to  the  prison,  and,  as  an  attestation  of  his  innocence,  with 
their  own  lips  to  release  \  him  and  his  companion.  They  now  betook 
themselves  to  the  house  of  Lydia,  where  the  other  Christians  of  the  city 
were  assembled,  and  spoke  the  last  words  of  encouragement  and  exhorta- 
tion. They  then  quitted  the  place,  but  Luke  and  Timothy,  who  had  not 
been  included  in  the  persecution,  stayed  behind  in  peace.§  It  is  easily 
explained  how  Timothy  on  account  of  his  youth,  since  he  took  but  little 
part  in  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel,  escaped  the  persecutions  from 
which  Paul  and  Silas  suffered,  and  could  therefore  remain  without 
danger  at  Philippi. 

But  when  Baur,  in  reference  to  our  filling  up  of  the  connexion,  thinks  that  so  import- 
ant a  circumstance  could  not  possibly  be  passed  over  by  a  faithful  historian,  we  shall 
certainly  grant  that  he  would  have  given  such  an  explanation  if  he  had  been  a  prag- 
matical narrator,  and  had  placed  himself  altogether  on  the  stand-point  of  his  readers, 
and  had  made  a  point  of  telling  them  all  they  wished  to  know.  But  this  is  not  the 
case  ;  the  narrator's  only  concern  was  what  the  Duumvirs  did,  not  the  reasons  which 
induced  them  so  to  act. 

*  See  the  well-known  words  of  Cicero,  Act.  II.  in  Verrem,  v.  57.  "  Jam  ilia  vox  e< 
imploratio  civis  Romanus  sum,  quae  ssepe  multis  in  ultimis  terris  opem  inter  barbaros  el 
salutem  attulit."  That  utterance  and  appeal,  "  I  am  a  Roman  citizen"  which  has  often  in 
remote  lands,  among  barbarians,  brought  succor  and  safety. 

f  How  Paul's  father  obtained  the  Roman  citizenship  we  know  not.  We  have  no  ground 
for  assuming,  that  Paul  was  indebted  for  it  to  his  being  born  at  Tarsus ;  for  though  Dio 
Chrysostom,  in  his  second  loyoc  Tapautbc,  vol.  ii.  ed.  Reiske,  p.  36,  mentions  several 
privileges  which  the  Emperor  Augustus  had  granted  to  the  city  of  Tarsus  as  a  reward  for 
its  fidelity  in  the  civil  wars,  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  Roman  citizenship  was  one  of 
them,  and  allowing  it  to  have  been  so,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it  would  have  been 
conferred  on  a  foreign  Jewish  family,  to  which  Paul  belonged.  Silas  also  must  have 
obtained  by  some  means  the  right  of  a  Roman  citizen. 

\  Baur  finds  it  improbable  that  Paul  did  not,  in  this  case,  appeal  earlier  to  his  civil 
rights,  since  he  might  thus  at  the  beginning  have  avoided  everything  that  had  befallen 
them.  But  in  the  tumultuous  confusion  of  the. transaction  Paul  might  have  had  no  oppor- 
tunity to  protest  against  the  violation  of  his  right  of  citizenship.  In  a  Roman  colony, 
little  courtesy  would  be  likely  to  be  paid  to  two  Jews  charged  with  violating  the  law  by 
religious  proselyting.  That  Paul  thrice  suffered  punishment  to  which  he  was  not  subject 
according  to  Roman  law,  appears  from  his  own  words,  2  Cor.  xi.  25 ;  and  we  cannot 
suppose  that  in  any  one  of  these  cases  he  would  have  submitted  to  such  ignominious 
treatment,  if  by  appealing  to  his  civil  rights  he  could  have  avoided  it. 

§  Timothy  rejoined  Paul  at  Thessalonica  or  Bercea ;  and  Luke  at  a  later  period ;  in 
which  case,  not  Timothy  alone  is  to  be  thought  of  as  the  one  speaking  in  tho  irst  person 
in  the  narrative  of  the  Acta. 

12 


178  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

Paul  left  in  Philippi  a  church  full  of  faith  and  zeal,  who  shortly 
after  gave  a  proof  of  their  affectionate  concern  for  him  by  sending  con- 
tributions for  his  maintenance,  though  he  never  sought  for  such  gifts,  but 
supported  himself  by  the  labor  of  his  own  hands. 

Paul  and  Silas  now  directed  their  course  to  Thessalonica,  about 
twenty  miles  distant,  the  largest  city  of  Macedonia,  and  a  place  of  con- 
siderable traffic,  where  many  Jews  resided.  Here  they  found  a  syna- 
gogue, which  for  three  weeks  Paul  visited  on  the  Sabbath  ;  the  hearts  of 
many  proselytes  were  won  by  his  addresses  ;  and  through  them  a  way 
was  opened  for  publishing  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  in  the  city. 
From  what  Paul  says  in  1  Thess.  i.  9,  10  ;  ii.  10,  11,*  we  find  that  he 
was  not  satisfied  with  addressing  the  proselytes  only  once  a  week  at  the 
meetings  of  the  synagogue  ;  his  preaching  would  then  have  been  con- 
fined to  the  small  number  of  Gentiles  who  belonged  to  the  proselytes. 
At  the  meetings  of  the  synagogue,  he  could  adopt  only  such  a  method 
and  form  of  address  as  suited  the  views  of  the  Jews;  he  must  have 
assumed  many  things,  and  many  topics  he  could  not  have  developed,  which 
required  to  be  fully  discussed,  in  order  to  meet  the  peculiar  exigencies 
of  the  heathen.  But  he  knew,  as  we  see  from  several  examples,  how  to 
distinguish  between  the  different  views  and  wants  of  the  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  hence,  we  may  presume,  that  he  found  opportunities  to  adapt 
himself  to  these  differences.  It  is  certain  that  the  Gentiles,  whose  atten- 
tion was  awakened  by  the  proselytes,  soon  assembled  in  various  places 
to  hear  him,  and  from  them  chiefly  a  church  was  formed,  professing  faith 
in  the  one  living  God,  as  well  as  faith  in  the  Redeemer. 

Agreeably  to  the  declarations  of  Christ  Matt.  x.  10,  (compared  with 
1  Cor.  ix.  14),  Paul  recognised  the  justice  of  the  requirement,  that  the 
maintenance  of  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  should  be  furnished  by  those 
for  whom  they  expended  their  whole  strength  and  activity,  and  on  whom 
they  thus  conferred  the  highest  benefit.  But  since  he  was  conscious  that 
in  one  point  he  was  inferior  to  the  other  apostles,  not  having  at  first 
joined  himself  voluntarily  to  the  Redeemer,  but  having  been  by  the  di- 
vine grace,  as  it  were  against  his  will,  transformed  from  a  violent  perse- 
cutor of  the  church  into  an  apostle,  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  sacrifice  a 
right  belonging  to  the  apostolic  office,  in  order  to  evince  his  readiness 
and  delight  in  the  calling  which  was  laid  upon  him  by  a  higher  necessity ; 
(1  Cor.  ix.  16-18).  Thus  also  he  found  the  means  of  promoting  his 
apostolic  labors  among  the  heathen ;  for  a  ministry  so  manifestly  disin- 
terested, sacrificing  every  thing  for  the  good  of  others,  and  undergoing 
all  toils  and  deprivations,  must  have  won  the  confidence  of  many,  even 

*  Schrader,  in  his  Chronological  Remarks,  p.  95,  thinks  that  these  passages  cannot 
possibly  refer  to  Paul's  first  visit  to  Thessalonica,  which  must  have  been  a  very  short  one. 
But  there  seems  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition,  that  a  man  of  such  zeal  and  inde- 
fatigable activity  in  his  calling,  would  in  the  space  of  three  or  four  weeks  effect  so  much, 
and  leave  behind  him  so  vivid  an  impression  of  his  character  and  conduct  as  is  implied  in 
these  passages. 


PAUL   AT  THESSALONICA.  179 

of  those  who  otherwise  were  disposed  to  suspect  selfish  motives  in  a  zeal 
for  the  best  interests  of  others  which  they  could  not  appreciate.  He 
must  have  been  the  more  anxious  to  remove  every  pretext  for  such  a 
suspicion,  because  the  conduct  of  many  Jews  who  were  active  in  makin^ 
proselytes,  was  calculated  to  cast  such  an  imputation  on  the  Jewish 
teachers  in  general.  The  other  apostles  in  their  youth  had  earned  their 
livelihood  by  a  regular  employment,  but  yet  one  which  they  could  not 
follow  in  every  place ;  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  though  destined  to  be  a 
Jewish  theologian,  yet  according  to  the  maxims  prevalent  in  the  Jewish 
schools,*  along  with  the  study  of  the  law,  had  learned  the  art  of  tent- 
making ;  and  he  easily  gained  a  maintenance  by  this  handicraft,  wherever 
he  went,  on  account  of  the  mode  of  travelling  in  the  East,  and  the  man- 
ifold occasions  on  which  tentsf  were  used.  While  anxiety  for  the  spirit- 
ual wants  of  the  heathen  and  the  new  converts  to  Christianity  wholly 
occupied  his  mind,  he  was  forced  to  employ  the  night  in  earning  the 
necessaries  of  life  for  himself  and  his  companions  (1  Thess.  ii.  9 ;  Acts 
xx.  34),  excepting  as  far  as  he  obtained  some  relief  by  the  affectionate 
voluntary  offerings  of  the  church  at  Philippi.  Phil.  iv.  16.  But  to  him 
it  was  happiness  to  give  to  others  without  receiving  anything  in  return 
from  them  ;  from  his  own  experience  he  knew  the  truth  of  the  Lord's 
words,  "It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive."     Acts  xx.  35. 

The  apostle  not  only  publicly  addressed  the  church,  but  visited  indi- 
viduals in  their  families,  and  impressed  on  their  hearts  the  fundamental 
truths  of  the  gospel  in  private  conversations,  or  warned  them  of  the  dan- 
gers that  threatened  the  Christian  life.J  He  endeavored  to  cherish  the 
hopes  of  believers  under  the  sufferings  of  their  earthly  life,  by  pointing 
them  to  the  period  when  Christ  would  come  again  to  bring  his  kingdom 
among  mankind  to  a  victorious  consummation.  And  we  have  already 
pointed  out  how  near  this  decisive  event  must  have  appeared  to  the  apos- 

*  In  the  Pirke  Avoth,  c.  2,  §  2,  f^X  ^  D3>  rn\P  TUttVp  rttj,  "Beautiful  is  the 
study  of  th,e  law  with  an  earthly  employment,  by  which  a  man  gains  his  livelihood;"  and 
the  reason  alleged  is,  that  both  together  are  preventives  of  sin,  but  in  their  absence,  the 
soul  is  easily  ruined,  and  sin  finds  entrance.  And  thus  as  in  monasteries,  occupation  by 
manual  labor  had  for  its  object,  not  simply  to  make  provision  for  the  support  of  the  body, 
but  also  to  prevent  sensuality  frcm  mingling  with  higher  spiritual  employments. 

f  Philo  de  Victimis,  836,  ed.  Francof.  "The  hair  and  skins  of  goats,  woven  and  sewed 
together,  make  movable  tents  for  travellers,  and  especially  for  those  engaged  in  military 
affairs,"  alyuv  A£  al  rpixec,  <u  dopal  avvv<paivofievai  re  ko).  avfifianTouevai,  (popijTdl  yeyova- 
ctv  odoinopotc  olniai  Kal  fidltara  role  ev  arpareiaic.  This  indicntes,  though  it  does  not 
prove,  that  Paul  chose  this  occupation  from  its  being  one  for  which  his  native  country  waa 
celebrated ;  hence,  too,  we  read  of  tentoria  Cilicina. 

\  We  do  not  see  why  the  exhortations  and  warnings  given  to  the  Christians  at  Thes- 
salonica,  to  which  Paul  appeals  in  both  his  Epistles,  might  not  have  been  communicated 
during  bis  first  residence  among  them ;  for  would  not  Paul's  wisdom  and  knowledge  of 
human  nature,  foresee  the  dangers  likely  to  arise,  and  endeavor  to  fortify  his  di.-ciples 
against  them?  Schrader's  argument  deduced  from  this  circumstance,  against  the  dates 
commonly  offered  to  these  two  Epistles,  is  not,  therefore,  very  weighty. 


180  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

tolic  view.  Under  the  sufferings  and  shame  which  he  endured  at  Phil 
ippi,  the  anticipation  of  this  divine  triumph  inspired  him  all  the  more. 
Filled  with  these  sentiments,  he  came  to  Thessalonica,  and  with  an  ele- 
vation of  feeling,  which  naturally  communicated  itself  to  other  minds, 
he  testified  of  the  hope  that  animated  him,  and  raised  him  above  all 
earthly  sufferings.  But  as  his  inspiration  was  far  removed  from  every 
mixture  of  that  fanaticism,  which  cannot  separate  the  subjective  feeling 
and  mental  views  from  what  belongs  to  faith  and  the  confidence  of 
faith,  he  by  no  means  spoke  of  the  nearness  of  that  great  event  as  ab- 
solutely determined ;  he  adhered  with  modest  sobriety  to  the  saying  of 
the 'Lord,  that  "it  was  not  for  men  to  know  the  times  and  seasons." 
And  with  apostolic  discretion  he  endeavored  to  warn  the  new  converts 
lest,  by  filling  their  imaginations  with  visions  of  the  felicity  of  the  ap- 
proaching reign  of  Christ,  and  wrapping  themselves  in  pleasing  dreams, 
they  should  forget  the  necessary  preparations  for  the  future,  and  for  the 
impending  conflict.  He  foretold  them  that  they  had  still  many  sufferings 
and  many  struggles  to  endure,  before  they  could  attain  the  undisturbed 
enjoyment  of  blessedness  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

Though  the  apostle,  in  opposition  to  the  pretensions  of  meritorious 
works  and  moral  self-sufficiency  advanced  by  Judaizing  teachers,  ear- 
nestly set  forth  the  doctrine  of  justification,  not  by  human  works  Avhich 
are  ever  defective,  but  by  appropriating  the  grace  of  redemption  through 
faith  alone  ;  yet  he  also  deemed  it  of  importance  to  warn  the  new  con- 
verts against  another  misapprehension  to  which  a  superficial  conversion, 
or  a  confusion  of  the  common  Jewish  notions  of  faith  with  the  Pauline, 
might  expose  them  ;  namely,  the  false  representation  of  those  who  held 
that  a  renunciation  of  idolatry,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  without  the  life-transforming  influence  of  such  a  conviction, 
was  sufficient  to  place  them  on  a  better  footing  than  the  heathen,  and  to 
secure  them  from  the  divine  judgments  that  threatened  the  heathen 
world*  He  often  charged  them  most  impressively,  to  manifest  in  the 
habitual  tenor  of  their  lives  the  change  effected  in  their  hearts  by  the 
gospel;  and  declared  that  their  criminality  would  be  aggravated,  if, 
after  they  had  been  devoted  to  God  by  redemption  and  baptism  to  serve 
him  with  a  holy  life,  they  returned  to  their  former  vices,  and  thus  de- 
filed their  bodies  and  souls  which  had  been  made  the  temples  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.     1  Thess.  iv.  8  ;  ii.  12. 

But  the  speedy  and  cordial  reception  which  the  gospel  met  with 
among  the  Gentiles,  roused  the  fanatical  fury  and  zealotry  of  many  Jews, 
who  had  already  been  exasperated  by  the  apostle's  discourse  in  the  syna- 

*  These  are  the  "vain  words,"  kevoI  \byoi,  Eph.  v.  6,  of  which  Paul  thought  it  ne- 
cessary so  solemnly  to  warn  the  Gentile  Christians.  Hence,  warning  them  against  such  a 
superficial  Christianity,  he  reminds  them  that  every  vicious  person  resembles  an  idolater, 
and  would  be  equally  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that  not  merely  for  idolatry, 
but  for  every  unsubdued  vice,  unbelievers  would  be  exposed  to  the  divine  condemnation. 


PAUL   AT  THESSALONICA.  181 

gogue.  They  stirred  up  some  of  the  common  people  who  forced  their 
way  into  the  house  of  Jason  a  Christian,  where  Paul  was  staying.  But 
as  they  did  not  find  the  apostle,  they  dragged  Jason  and  some  other 
Christians  before  the  judgment-seat.  As  on  this  occasion  the  persecu- 
tion originated  with  the  Jews,  who  merely  employed  the  Gentiles  as 
their  tools,  the  accusation  brought  against  the  publishers  of  the  new  doc- 
trine was  not  the  same  as  that  made  at  Philippi ;  they  were  not  charged, 
as  in  other  cases,  with  having  disturbed  the.  Jews  in  the  peaceful  exer 
cise  of  their  ovvn  mode  of  worship  as  guaranteed  to  them  by  the  laws.* 
As  Paul  had  labored  here  for  the  most  part  among  the  Gentiles,  the 
grounds  were  too  slight  for  supporting  such  an  accusation,  especially  as 
the  civil  authorities  were  not  predisposed  to  receive  it.  At  this  time,  a 
political  accusation,  the  crimen  majestatis,  was  likely  to  be  more  suc- 
cessful, a  device  that  was  often  employed  in  a  similar  way,  at  a  later  pe- 
riod, by  the  enemies  of  the  Christian  faith.  Paul  had  spoken  much  at 
Thessalonica  of  the  approaching  kingdom  of  Christ,  to  which  believers 
already  belonged  ;  and  by  distorting  his  expressions,  the  accusation  was 
rendered  plausible.  He  instigated  people  (it  was  averred)  to  acknowl- 
edge one  Jesus  as  supreme  ruler  instead  of  Caesar.  But  the  authorities, 
when  they  saw  the  persons  before  them  who  were  charged  with  being 
implicated  in  the  conspiracy,  could  not  credit  such  an  accusation ;  and 
after  Jason  and  his  friends  had  given  security  that  there  should  be  no 
violation  of  the  public  peace,  and  that  those  persons  who  had  been  the 
alleged  causes  of  this  disturbance  should  soon  leave  the  city,  they  were 
dismissed. 

On  the  evening  of  the  same  day  Paul  and  Silas  left  the  city,  after  a 
residence  of  three  or  four  weeks.  As  Paul  could  not  remain  there  as 
long  as  the  necessities  of  the  newly  formed  church  required,  his  anxiety 
was  awakened  on  its  behalf,  since  he  foresaw  that  it  would  have  to  en- 
dure much  persecution  from  the  Gentiles  at  the  instigation  of  the  Jews. 
He  had  formed,  therefore,  the  intention  of  returning  thither  as  soon  as 
the  first  storm  of  the  popular  fury  had  subsided;  1  Thess.  ii.  18.    Possibly 


*  Baur  imagines  (p.  482)  that  he  has  detected  something  unhistorical  in  Acts  xvii.  6. 
"  How  could  it  be  said  of  Paul  and  his  companions,  since  it  was  for  the  first  time  they  had 
visited  these  parts,  that  they  had  thrown  the  '  whole  world  '  (oiKov/xivrj)  into  confusion  ?" 
But  is  it  not  natural,  that  impassioned  accusers,  who  wished  to  make  the  most  of  the  ob- 
ject that  roused  their  enmity,  should  use  the  language  of  exaggeration  ?  Baur  says  far- 
ther, "  "What  a  long  time  intervened  before  Christianity  appeared  so  politically  dangerous 
to  the  Romans  as  is  implied  in  the  words  '  contrary  to  the  decrees  of  Caesar'  (uTrevavri" 
&c.)  Certainly  it  was  a  lorg  interval  before  Christianity  appeared  as  a  religion  dangerous 
to  the  state  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  so  esteemed  in  the  second  century.  But  it  was 
something  quite  different  when  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  perverted 
into  a  design  to  establish  a  worldly  kingdom,  and  to  set  up  another  ruler  against  the 
Roman  Emperor.  Such  an  accusation  had  already  been  made  against  Jesus  himself,  and 
in  the  first  age  of  Christianity  no  other  could  be  found.  At  a  later  period,  quite  different 
accusations  were  brought  against  the  Christians  as  viewed  from  the  Roman  civil  law. 


182  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

he  left  Timothy  behind,*  who  had  not  been  an  object  of  persecution,  un- 
less he  met  him  first  at  Beroea,  after  leaving  Philippi.  Paul  and  Silas 
now  proceeded  to  Beroea,  a  town  about  ten  miles  distant,  where  they 
met  with  a  better  reception  from  the  Jews ;  the  gospel  here  found  ac- 
ceptance also  with  the  Gentiles  ;  but  a  tumult  raised  by  Jews  from  Thes- 
salonica  forced  Paul  to  leave  the  place  almost  immediately.  Accom- 
panied by  some  believers  from  Beroea,  be  then  directed  his  course  to 
Athens.f 

Though  the  consequences  which  resulted  from  the  apostle's  labors  at 
Athens  were  at  first  inconsiderable,,  yet  his  appearance  in  this  city  (which 
in  a  different  sense  from  Rome  might  be  called  the  metropolis  of  the 
world),  was  in  real  importance  unquestionably  one  of  the  most  memora- 
ble signs  of  the  new  spiritual  creation.  A  herald  of  that  divine  doctrine 
which,  fraught  with  divine  power,  was  destined  to  change  the  principles 
and  practices  of  the  ancient  world,  Paul  came  to  Athens,  the  parent  of 
Grecian  culture  and  philosophy ;  the  city  to  which,  as  the  grecian  ele- 
ment had  imbued  the  culture  of  the  "West,  the  whole  Roman  world  was 
indebted  for  its  mental  advancement;  which  also  was  the  central  point  of 
the  Grecian  religion,  where  an  enthusiastic  attachment  to  all  that  be- 
longed to  ancient  Hellas,  not  excepting  its  idolatry,  retained  a  firm  hold 
till  the  fourth  century.  Zeal  for  the  honor  of  the  gods,  each  one  of  whom 
had  here  his  temple  and  his  altars,  and  was  celebrated  by  the  master- 
pieces of  art,  rendered  Athens  famous  throughout  the  civilized  world.J 
It  was  at  first  Paul's  intention  to  wait  for  the  arrival  of  Silas  and  Tim- 
othy before  he  entered  on  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  as  by  his  com- 
panions who  had  returned  to  Beroea  he  had  sent  word  for  them  to  fol- 
low him  as  soon  as  possible.  But  when  he  saw  himself  surrounded  by 
the  statues,  and  altars,  and  temples  of  the  gods,  and  works  of  art,  by 
which   the   honor   due   to   the   living   God   alone   was   transferred   to 

*  Since  the  departure  of  Timothy  is  not  mentioned,  Acts  xvii.  10. 

|  It  is  doubtful  whether  Paul  went  by  land  or  by  sea  to  Athens;  the  £>g  in  Acts  xvii. 
14,  may  be  understood  simply  as  marking  the  direction  of  his  route.  See  "Winer's  Gram- 
matik,  3d  ed.  p.  498.  (6th  ed.  p.  544 ;  Eng.  tr.  p.  640.)  Beroea  lay  near  the  sea,  and 
this  way  was  the  shortest.  But  the  ur  may  also  signify,  that  they  took  at  first  their  course 
towards  the  sea,  in  order  to  mislead  the  Jews  (who  expected  them  to  come  that  way,  and 
were  lying  in  wait  for  Paul  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  port),  and  afterwards  pursued  their 
journey  by  land.  So  we  find  on  another  occasion,  when  Paul  was  about  to  sail  from 
Corinth  to  Asia  Minor,  he  found  himself  in  danger  from  the  plots  of  the  Jews,  and  pre- 
ferred going  by  land  ;  Acts  xx.  3.  The  first  interpretation  appears  to  be  the  simplest  and 
most  favored  by  the  context.  The  iu(  adopted  by  Lachmann  [and  Tischendorf,  Lips. 
1841]  appears  to  have  arisen  from  a  gloss. 

\  Apollonius  of  Tyana  (in  Philostratus)  calls  the  Athenians  "sacrificers,"  <f>i/.odvrai. 
Pausanias  ascribes  to  them  {Attic,  i.  17),  to  elc  6eovc  eboefielv  u?.?.uv  nXeov,  (a  surpassing 
of  othncs  in  their  reverence  for  the  Gods ;)  and  (c.  24),  rb  -epicaorepov  tTjc  elg  rd  dela  ottov- 
6tjc,  (excess  of  zeal  for  divine  things.)  In  the  religious  system  of  the  Athenians,  there  was 
a  peculiar  refinement  of  moral  sentiment,  for  they  alone  among  the  Greeks  erected  aa 
altar  to  Pity,  eleog,  as  a  divinity. 


PAUL    AT    ATHENS.  183 

creatures  of  the  imagination,  lie  could  not  withstand  the  impulse  of  holy 
zeal,  to  testify  of  Him  who  called  erring  men  to  repentance  and  offered 
them  salvation.  He  spoke  in  the  synagogue  to  the  Jews  and  Proselytes, 
but  did  not  wait,  as  in  other  cities  till  a  way  was  opened  by  their  means 
for  publishing  the  gospel  to  the  heathen. 

From  ancient  times  it  was  customary  at  Athens  for  people  to  meet 
together  under  covered  porticoes  in  public  places,  to  converse  with  one 
another  on  matters  of  all  kinds,  trifling  or  important ;  and  then,  as  in 
the  time  of  Demosthenes,  groups  of  persons  might  be  met  with  in  the 
market,  collected  together  merely  to  hear  of  something  new.*  Accord- 
ugly,  Paul  made  it  his  business  to  enter  into  conversation  with  the 
passers-by,  in  hopes  of  turning  their  attention  to  the  most  important 
concern  of  man.  The  sentiments  with  which  he  was  inspired  had  noth- 
ing in  common  with  the  enthusiasm  of  the  fanatic,  who  is  unable  to 
transport  himself  from  his  own  peculiar  state  of  feeling  to  the  posi- 
tion of  others,  in  order  to  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  obstacles 
that  oppose  their  reception  of  what  he  holds  with  absolute  certainty  as 
truth.  Paul  knew,  indeed,  as  he  himself  says,  that  the  preaching  of  the 
crucified  Saviour  must  appear  to  the  wise  men  of  the  world  as  foolish- 
ness, until  they  became  fools,  that  is,  until  they  were  convinced  of  the 
insufficiency  of  their  wisdom  in  reference  to  the  knowledge  of  divine 
things,  and  for  the  satisfaction  of  their  religious  wants  ;  1  Cor.  i.  23  ;  iii. 
18.  But  he  was  not  ashamed,  as  he  also  affirms,  to  testify  to  the  wise 
and  the  unwise,  to  the  Greeks  and  to  the  barbarians,  of  what  he  knew 
from  his  own  experience  to  be  the  power  of  God  to  save  those  that 
believe ;  Rom.  i.  ]  6.  The  market  to  which  he  resorted  was  near  a  portico 
of  the  philosophers.  Here  he  met  with  philosophers  of  the  Epicurean 
and  Stoic  schools.  If  we  reflect  upon  the  relative  position  of  the  Stoics 
to  the  Epicureans,  that  the  former  acknowledged  something  divine  as 
the  animating  principle  in  the  universe  and  in  human  nature,  that  they 
were  inspired  with  an  ideal  founded  in  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and  that 
they  recognised  man's  religious  wants  and  the  traditions  that  bore  testi- 
mony to  it ; — while  on  the  other  hand,  the  latter,  though  they  did  not 
absolutely  do  away  with  the  belief  in  the  gods,  reduced  it  to  something 
inert,  non-essential,  and  superfluous ;  that  they  represented  pleasure  as 
the  highest  aim  of  human  pursuit,  and  that  they  were  accustomed  to 
ridicule  the  existing  religions  as  the  offspring  of  human  weakness  and  the 
spectral  creations  of  fear ;  we  might-from  such  a  contrast  infer  that  the 
Stoics  made  a  much  nearer  approach  to  Christianity  than  the  Epicureans. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  the  former  would  give  a  more  favorable  recep- 
tion to  the  gospel  than  the  latter,  for  their  vain  notion  of  moral  self- 

*  As  Demosthenes  reproaches  them  in  his  oration  against  the  epistle  of  Philip;  %/telf 
6t  ovdh>  noiovvrec  hOdde  icady/ieda  /cat  irvvdavofievoi  /card  rfjv  uyopuv,  el  tl  Xeyerai  vetj- 
TEjjov.  ("We  sit  here  doing  nothing,  and  inquire  along  the  market  if  there  is  anything  new 
afloat);  Acts  xvii.  21. 


184  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

sufficiency  was  diametrically  opposed  to  a  doctrine  which  inculcated 
repentance,  forgiveness  of  sins,  grace,  and  justification  by  faith.  Their 
supreme  God — the  impersonal,  eternal  reason  pervading  the  universe — 
was  something  very  different  from  the  living  God,  the  heavenly  Father 
full  of  love  whom  the  gospel  reveals,  and  who  must  have  appeared  to  the 
Stoics  as  far  too  human  a  being  ;  and  both  parties  agreed  in  the  Grecian 
pride  of  philosophy,  which  would  look  down  on  a  doctrine  appearing  in 
a  Jewish  garb,  and  not  developed  in  a  philosophic  form,  as  a  mere  out- 
landish superstition. 

The  derisive  designation  applied  by  the  Athenians  to  the  new  religion 
announced  by  Paul,  shows  plainly  what  he  made  the  chief  topic  of  his 
addresses,  and  by  what  method  he  handled  it.  He  did  not  begin  with 
the  Old  Testament,  as  if  he  had  been  instructing  Jews,  nor  represent 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  spoken  of  by  the  prophets.  Hence  his  hearers  were 
very  far  from  seeing  in  him  an  advocate  of  the  Jewish  religion.  He 
testified  of  Jesus  as  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  accredited  by  God,  and  of  his 
reappearance  after  being  raised  from  the  dead  to  an  existence  raised 
above  all  death,  as  a  pledge  of  the  same  eternal  life  for  all  who  were 
willing  to  accept  the  offered  salvation.  This  was  doctrine  adapted  to  the 
religious  wants  of  all.  The  Athenians  confined  themselves  to  what  the 
apostle  constantly  discoursed  of — Jesus  and  the  resurrection — without 
troubling  themselves  about  the  import  of  these.* 

Yet  many  among  those  who  gathered  around  the  apostle  during  his 
conversations,  were  at  least  pleased  to  hear  something  new  ;  and  their 
curiosity  was  excited  to  hear  of  the  strange  divinity  whom  he  wished  to 
introduce,  and  to  be  informed  respecting  his  new  doctrine.  They  took 
him  to  the  hill,  where  the  first  tribunal  at  Athens,  the  Areopagus,  was 
accustomed  to  hold  its  sittings,  and  where  he  could  easily  find  a  spot 
suited  to  a  large  audience.f  The  discourse  of  Paul  on  this  occasion  is  a 
living  demonstration  of  his  apostolic  wisdom  and  eloquence :  we  here 
perceive  how  the  apostle  (to  use  his  own  language)  to  the  heathens 
became  a  heathen,  that  he  might  gain  the  heathens  to  Christianity. 

Inspired  by  feelings  that  were  implanted  from  youth  in  the  mind  of  a 
pious  Jew,  and  glowing  with  zeal  for  the  honor  of  his  God,  Paul  must 
have  been  horror-struck  at  the  spectacle  of  the  idolatry  that  met  him 
wherever  he  turned  his  eyes.  He  might  easily  have  been  betrayed  by 
his  feelings  into  intemperate  language.    And  it  evinced  no  ordinary  self- 

*  "When  Baur  regards  this  whole  narrative  taken  from  the  life,  as  a  mere  fabrication 
made  with  deliberate  design,  I  need  only,  without  wearying  myself  and  intelligent  readers 
with  a  refutation  of  particulars,  since  the  same  game  is  constantly  repeated,  appeal  to 
what  I  have  already  said  against  this  whole  method,  which  makes  a  subjective  pragma- 
tism out  of  an  objective  one. 

f  The  whole  course  of  the  proceedings  and  the  apostle's  discourse  prove  that  he  did  not 
appear  as  an  accused  person  before  his  judges,  in  order  to  defend  himself  against  the 
charge  of  introducing  foreign  and  unlawful  religions,  religiones  peregrinm  et  illicitce.  The 
Athenians  did  not  view  the  subject  in  so  serious  a  light. 


FA  ,X   AT  ATHENS.  185 

denial  and  self-command,  that  instead  of  beginning  with  expressions  of 
detestation,  instead  of  representing  the  whole  religious  system  of  the 
Greeks  as  a  Satanic  delusion,  he  appealed  to  the  truth  which  lay  at  its 
basis,  while  he  sought  to  awaken  in  his  hearers  the  primitive  conscious- 
ness of  God  which  was  only  repressed  by  the  power  of  sin,  and  thus 
aimed  at  leading  them  to  the  knowledge  of  that  Saviour  whom  he  came 
to  announce.  As  among  the  Jews,  in  whom  the  knowledge  of  God  had 
been  carried  by  divine  revelation  to  a  clear  and  pure  development  of  the 
idea  of  the  Messiah,  he  could  appeal  to  the  national  history,  the  law  and 
the  prophets,  as  witnesses  of  Christ ;  so  here  he  appealed  to  the  unde- 
niable anxiety  of  natural  religion  after  an  unknown  God.  He  began 
with  acknowledging  in  the  religious  zeal  of  the  Athenians  a  true  religious 
feeling,  though  erroneously  directed,  an  undeniable  tending  of  the  mind 
towards  something  divine.*  He  begins  with  acknowledging  in  a  lauda- 
tory manner  the  strength  of  the  religious  sentiment  among  the  Athenians,! 

*  Much  depends  on  the  meaning  attached  to  the  ambiguous  word  dtiaidalfiuv, 
"superstitious,"  Acts xvii.  22.  The  original  signification  of  this  word,  in  popular  usage, 
certainly  denoted  something  good — as  is  the  case  in  all  languages  with  words  which 
denote  the  fear  of  God  or  -of  the  gods — the  feeling  of  dependence  on  a  higher  power, 
which,  if  we  analyse  the  religious  sentiment,  appears  to  be  its  original  element ;  although 
it  is  not  exhaustive  of  all  which  belongs  to  the  essential  nature  of  theism,  and  although, 
without  the  addition  of  another  element,  it  may  give  rise  to  superstition  as  well  as  faith. 
Now  since,  where  the  feeling  of  fear  (fciXia  npbs  to  datjiovior,  Theophrast.)  is  the  ruling 
determining  principle  in  the  conscience,  superstition  alone  can  be  the  result,  it  has  hap- 
pened that  this  word  has  been,  by  an  abuse  of  the  term,  applied  to  that  perversion  of 
religious  sentiment.  This  phraseology  was  then  prevalent.  Thus  Plutarch  uses  the  word 
in  his  admirable  treatise  nepl  deioidaifioviac;  nal  ddeoTr/roc,  in  which  he  proceeds  on  the 
supposition,  that  the  source  of  superstition  is  that  mode  of  thinking  which  contemplates 
the  gods  only  as  objects  of  fear ;  but  he  errs  in  this  point,  that  he  traces  the  origin  of  this 
morbid  tendency  to  a  wrong  direction  of  the  intellectual  faculties.  Compare  the  pro- 
found remarks  of  Nitzsch,  in  his  treatise  on  the  religious  ideas  of  the  ancients.  The  word 
fieiacAatfiovia  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  one  other  passage,  Acts  xxv.  19, 
where  the  Roman  procurator  Festus,  speaking  to  the  Jewish  King  Agrippa  of  Judaism, 
could  not  intend  to  brand  it  as  superstition,  but  rather  used  the  word  as  a  general  designa- 
tion for  a  foreign  religion.  He  might,  however,  have  chosen  this  word,  although  not  with  a 
special  design,  yet  not  quite  accidentally,  as  one  which  was  suited  to  express  the  subjec- 
tive view  taken  by  the  Romans  of  Judaism.  But  Paul  certainly  used  the  word  in  a  good 
sense,  for  he  deduced  the  seeking  after  the  unknown  God,  which  he  doubtless  considered 
as  something  good,  from  this  deiotdaiftovia,  so  prevalent  among  the  Athenians.  He  an- 
nounced himself  as  one  who  would  guide  their  (Uioitiaifiovta,  not  rightly  conscious  of  its 
object  and  aim,  to  a  state  of  clear  self-consciousness,  by  a  revelation  of  the  object  to 
which  it  thus  ignorantly  tended.  Still  it  may  be  asked,  whether  Paul  had  not  deeper 
reasons  (though  without  perhaps  reflecting  specially  upon  them)  for  using  the  word 
6eiGi6aifiovta,  instead  of  another  which  he  was  accustomed  to  use  as  the  designation  of 
pure  piety.  He  uses  the  term  evoePetv  immediately  afterwards,  where  it  plainly  indicates 
the  exercise  of  the  religious  sentiment  towards  the  true  God. 

\  In  the  comparative  (hiaLfiaifiovearepovg,  a  reference  is  made  to  the  quality  which,  aa 
we  have  before  remarked,  used  to  be  attributed  to  the  Athenians  in  a  higher  degree  than 
to  all  the  other  Greeks, — a  fact  which  the  apostle  would  easily  have  learned. 


186  Paul's  second  mission  art  journey. 

and  adducing  as  a  proof  of  it,  that  while  walking  amongst  their  sacred 
edifices,  he  came  upon  an  altar  dedicated  to  an  unknown  God.* 

The  inscription,  certainly  as  understood  by  those  who  framed  it,  by  no 
means  proved  that  they  were  animated  with  the  conception  of  an  un- 
known God  exalted  above  all  other  gods  ;  but  only  that  according  to 
their  belief  they  had  received  good  or  evil  from  some  unknown  god, 
and  this  uncertainty  in  respect  to  the  completeness  of  their  worship, 
enters  into  the  very  essence  of  Polytheism,  since,  according  to  its  nature, 
it  may  include  an  infinity  of  objects.  But  Paul  cited  this  inscription, 
attaching  a  deeper  meaning  to  it,  to  make  it  a  point  of  connexion  f  for 
pointing  out  a  higher  but  indistinct  sentiment  lying  at  the  root  of  Poly- 
theism. Polytheism  proceeds  from  the  feeling  of  dependence  (whether 
founded  on  a  sense  of  benefits  conferred  or  of  evils  inflicted)  on  a  higher 

*  If  we  examine  with  care  all  the  accounts  of  antiquity,  and  compare  the  various  phases 
of  polytheism,  we  shall  find  no  sufficient  ground  for  denying  the  existence  of  an  altar  ac- 
tually bearing  the  inscription  here  mentioned  by  Paul.  The  inscription,  as  he  cites  it,  and 
which  proves  his  fidelity  in  the  citation,  by  no  means  asserts  that  it  was  an  altar  to  the 
Unknown  God,  but  only  an  altar  dedicated  to  an  unknown  God.  Jerome,  it  is  true,  in 
the  first  chapter  of  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Titus,  and  in  his  Epistola 
ad  Magnum,  thus  cites  the  inscription  of  the  altar:  Diis  Asiae  et  Europiae  et  Libyae,  Diia 
ignotis  et  peregrinis,  (to  the  Gods  of  Asia,  Europe,  and  Africa,  to  the  unknown  and  for- 
eign gods) ;  and  he  thinks  that  Paul  may  have  modified  the  form  of  the  inscription  to  suit 
his  application  of  it.  But  Jerome,  perhaps,  here  as  in  other  instances,  judged  too  super- 
ficially. Several  ancient  writers  mention  the  altars  of  the  unknown  gods  at  Athens,  but 
in  a  manner  that  does  not  determine  the  form  of  the  inscription.  For  example ;  Pau- 
sanius,  Attic,  i.  4,  and Eliac.  v.  14,  j3ufioi  Oeuv  dio/xaZo/ievuv  uyvuoTuv,  (altars  of  the  so- 
called  unknown  gods),  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  in  Philostratus,  vi ;  3,  where,  like  Paul,  he 
finds  in  the  style  of  the  inscription  an  evidence  of  the  pious  disposition  of  the  Athenians 
in  reference  to  divine  tilings,  that  they  had  erected  altars  even  to  unknown  gods;  aoxppo- 
vsarepov  to  nepl  nuvTUf  deuiv  ev  ?.eyeiv,  nai  ravra  '  kdrjvnaiv,  ov  ical  tlyvuaruv  datfiovuv 
Bufioi  Idpvvrai,  (it  is  wiser  to  speak  well  of  all  the  gods,  especially  at  Athens,  where 
altars  are  set  up  even  to  unknown  divinities).  Isodorus  of  Pelusium,  vi.  69,  cannot  be 
adduced  as  an  authority,  since  he  merely  speaks  of  conjectures.  Diogenes  Laertius  says, 
in  the  life  of  Epimeuides  III.,  that,  in  the  time  of  a  plague,  when  they  knew  not  what 
god  to  propitiate  in  order  to  avert  it,  he  caused  black  and  white  sheep  to  be  let  loose 
from  the  Areopagus,  and  wherever  they  lay  down,  to  be  offered  to  the  respective  divinity 
(r<p  npoof/KovTi.  8eC>).  Hence,  says  Diogenes,  there  are  still  altars  in  Athens  without 
determinate  names.  Although  the  precise  inscription  is  not  here  given,  yet  altars  might 
be  erected  on  this  or  a  similar  occasion  which  were  dedicated  to  an  unknown  god,  since 
they  knew  not  what  god  was  offended  and  required  to  be  propitiated,  as  Chrysostom  has 
also  remarked  in  his  38th  homily  on  the  Acts.  If  this  had  been  a  fabrication  of  the 
Author  of  the  Acts,  he  would  have  been  more  likely  to  use  ru>  dyruaru,  which  would 
have  better  suited  his  purpose. 

\  The  employment,  as  a  point  of  departure,  of  a  truth  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  an 
expression  used  on  a  lower  stand-point  of  religious  consciousness,  and  which  was  not 
clearly  developed  in  the  souls  of*  those  using  it,  cannot  possibly  admit  of  the  interpretation 
given  by  Baur,  p.  176,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  unhistorical  character  of  the  ad- 
dresses: "that  Paul  would  have  been  chargeable  with  an  obvious  violation  of  the  truth.  " 
According  to  such  a  view  many  applications  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  must  ba 
violations  of  the  truth. 


PAUL   AT   ATHENS.  187 

unknown  power,  to  which  it  is  needful  that  man  should  place  himself  in 
the  right  relation ;  but  instead  of  following  this  feeling,  in  order  by- 
means  of  that  in  human  nature  which  is  supernatural  and  allied  to  God, 
to  rise  to  a  consciousness  of  a  God  exalted  above  nature,  he  refers  it 
only  to  the  powers  of  nature  operating  upon  him  through  the  senses 
That  by  which  man's  natural  religious  feeling  is  immediately  drawn,  and 
to  which  it  refers  itself,  without  his  reflective  consciousness  making  it  a 
distinct  object,  is  one  thing :  but  that  which. the  mind,  enthralled  in  the 
circle  of  nature,_doing  homage  to  the  power  over  which  it  ought  to  rule, 
converts  with  reflective  consciousness  into  an  object  of  worship,  is  another 
thing.  Hence  Paul  views  the  whole  religion  of  the  Athenians  as  the 
worship  of  a  God  unknown  to  themselves,  and  presents  himself  as  a 
person  who  is  ready  to  lead  them  to  a  clear  self-consciousness  as  regards 
their  own  religious  feeling. 

"  I  announce  to  yon  Him,"  said  he,  "  whom  ye  worship,  without 
knowing  it.*  He  is  the  God  who  created  the  world  and  all  that  is  there- 
in. He,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  dwelleth  not  in  the  temples  made 
by  human  hands,  he  requires  no  human  service  on  his  own  account ;  He, 
the  all-sufficient  One,  has  given  to  all,  life,  and  breath,  and  all  things. 
He  also  is  the  originator  of  the  whole  human  race,  and  conducts  its  de- 
velopment to  one  great  end.  He  has  caused  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
to  descend  from  one  man,f  and  has  not  allowed  them  to  spread  by  chance 

*  We  see  from  this  how  Paul  psychologically  or  genetically  explained  the  origin  of  poly- 
theism, or  the  deification  of  nature,  and  how  far  he  was  from  adopting  the  Jewish  notion 
of  a  supernatural,  magical  origination  of  idolatry  by  means  of  evil  spirits,  who  sought  to 
become  the  objects  of  religious  homage.  The  idea  contained  in  these  words  of  Paul  forms 
also  the  groundwork  of  his  discourse  at  Lystra.  We  may  also  fiud  a  reference  to  it  in 
what  he  says,  Rom.  i.  19,  of  an  original  knowledge  of  God,  suppressed  by  the  predomi- 
nance of  immoral  propensities;  and  Rom.  i.  21,  25,  that  idolatry  begins  when  religious 
sentiment  cleaves  to  the  creature,  instead  of  rising  above  nature  to  the  Creator.  On  the 
first  passage,  see  Tholuck's,  and  on  the  second,  Riickert's,  excellent  remarks. 

f  This  also  is  probably  connected  with  what  he  says  in  opposition  to  polytheistic  views. 
In  polytheism,  a  knowledge  of  the  unity  of  human  nature  is  wanting,  because  such  knowl- 
edge is  closely  connected  with  a  knowledge  of  the  unity  of  God.  Polytheism  prefers  the 
idea  of  distinct  races  over  whom  their  respective  gods  preside,  to  the  idea  of  one  race  pro- 
ceeding from  one  origin.  For  the  idea  of  one  God  is  substituted  that  of  a  multiplicity  of 
gods,  and  so  for  the  idea  of  one  human  race  is  substituted  that  of  the  multiplicity  of  na- 
tional types,  over  each  of  which  a  god  is  supposed  to  preside  corresponding  to  the  partic- 
ular nation.  The  philosophy  of  the  ancients  lacked  the  idea  of  a  unity  of  mankind,  not 
only  as  to  their  origin,  but  also  as  to  their  peculiar  nature  and  the  end  of  their  develop- 
ment. It  lacked  in  general  the  unitive  and  teleoJogical  point  of  view  which  Christianity 
first  brought  to  light.  Inasmuch  as  every  thing  led  to  the  assumption  of,  in  a  certain 
sense  at  least,  a  beginning,  from  which  the  development  of  the  existing  race  has  pro- 
ceeded, they  denied  only  an  absolute  beginning.  They  fancied  themselves  in  a  circular 
course,  without  an  end,  between  the  dissolution  of  the  old  race  and  the  beginning  of  the 
new,  an  alternation  of  passing  away  and  becoming ;  vide  Plato's  Timajus,  vol.  ix.  ed.  Bip. 
p.  291  ;  Politicus,  vol.  vi.  p.  32.  Aristotle,  Metaphys.  1.  xii.  c.  8,  vol.  ii.  ed.  Bekkcr,  p. 
1074.  Polyb.  Hist.  1.  vi.  c.  5.  §  5,  6.  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  one  human  race, 
and  their  descent  from  one  man.  is  connected   /ith  the  idea  of  one  God.     Thus  Paul  set3 


188  PAULS   SECOND  MISSIONARY   JOURNEY. 

over  the  globe ;  for,  in  this  respect,  every  thing  is  under  his  control;  he 
has  appointed  to  each  people  its  dwelling-place,  and  has  ordained  the 
various  eras  in  the  history  of  nations — their  development  in  space  and 
time  is  fixed  by  his  all-governing  wisdom.*  Thus  God  has  revealed 
himself  in  the  vicissitudes  of  nations, -in  order  that  men  may  be  induced 
to  seek  after  him,  to  try  whether  they  may  know  and  find  him ;  and 
they  may  easily  know  him,  since  he  is  not  far  from  any  one  of  us,  for  in 
him  our  whole  existence  has  its  root."f  As  an  evidence  of  the  conscious- 
ness of  this  original  relationship  to  God,  he  quotes  the  words  of  a  hea- 
then, one  of  themselves,  the  poet  Aratus,  who  came  from  the  native 
country  of  the  apostle.     "  For  we  are  the  offspring  of  God."J     After 

the  unity  of  the  theistic  conceptions  in  contrast  with  the  multiplicity  existing  in  the  deifi- 
cation of  nature.  The  Emperor  Julian  observed  this  contrast  between  the  polytheistic  and 
monotheistic  anthropology  and  anthropogony.  Ylavraxov  ddpouv  vevadvruv  deciv,  ol 
nTieiovc;  npotpSov  dvdpurroi,  rolg  yevEu.pxo.i-C  deolq  diroKAnpudivrec,  (Every  where  crowds 
of  gods  beckoning,  the  majority  of  men  came  forward,  being  allotted  to  the  gods  as 
founders  of  races).     See  Julian,  Fragmmtum  ed.  Spanheim,  t.  i.  295. 

*  The  peculiar  relation  of  the  dwelling-places  assigned  the  nations,  to  their  particular 
characters  as  determined  by  natural  aptitudes  and  moral  freedom ;  the  secret  connexion 
between  nature  and  mankind  ordained  by  God,  and  grounded  in  a  higher  law  of  spiritual 
development. 

f  The  apostle's  words  are — "in  Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being,"  kv 
avru)  &/iev  ical  KivovfieOa  ital  lopev.  Many  expositors  have  explained  these  words,  as  if 
they  were  intended  to  denote  the  continual  dependence  of  existence  on  God,  as  the  pre- 
server of  all  things ;  and  without  taking  the  ev  in  an  Hebraistic  sense  =  through,  we 
might  so  understand  the  words  in  the  pure  Greek  also,  for  elvai  ev  rivi  may  signify  to 
depend  wholly  on  some  one,  as  ev  aol  yap  eapev,  in  the  (Edipus  Tyrannies  of  Sophocles,  v. 
3 14.  But  this  explanation  does  not  suit  the  connexion  of  the  passage ;  for  Paul  evidently 
is  speaking  here,  not  of  what  men  have  in  common  with  other  creatures,  but  of  what  dis- 
tinguishes men  from  other  creatures,  that  by  which  they  are  especially  related  to  God;  for 
as  an  evidence  of  this,  "in  Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  are,"  he  quotes  the  words  of  Ara- 
tus, which  refer  precisely  to  this  relation  of  man  to  God.  Hence,  in  order  to  find  the  con- 
nexion according  to  this  explanation,  we  must  amplify  the  thought  too  artificially;  thus, 
"  We  are  distinguished  above  all  other  creatures  in  our  capacity  for  knowing  this  depend- 
ence on  God."  On  the  other  hand,  every  thing  is  connected  in  the  most  natural  manner, 
if  we  consider  the  words  "  in  Him  we  live,  move,  and  are,"  as  pointing  out  the  secret 
connexion  of  men  with  God  as  "the  Father  of  Spirits,"  in  virtue  of  their  spiritual  and 
moral  nature.  As  Paul  says  nothing  here  which  is  peculiar  to  the  Christian  system,  but 
expresses  a  fact  grounded  on  the  general  principles  of  theism,  we  may  with  great  propri- 
ety compare  it  with  a  perfectly  analogous  expression  of  Dio  Chrysostom,  which  serves  to 
confirm  this  explanation.  He  says  of  men — "  But  since  we  are  removed  not  far  from,  nor 
outside  of  God,  but  are  by  nature  in  the  very  midst  of  him,  we  are  from  all  sides  filled 
with  the  divine  nature,"  are  ov  paupdv  oW  efw  roii  delov  diuKiafievoi.'dXX'  ev  avru  peacp 

iretpvKoreg  ekeIvu izavraxodev  kpnnT?.dpevoi  rrjg  deiag  (j>vaeur. — Be  Dei  Cognitione, 

vol.  i.  ed.  Reiske,  p.  384. 

%  These  words  are  quoted  from  the  tyaivopevoig  of  Aratus,  v.  5,  but  they  are  also  to  be 
found  in  the  beautiful  hymn  of  the  stoic  Cleanthus,  where  they  are  used  as  an  expression 
of  Reason,  as  a  mark  of  this  divine  relationship:  "We  are  thy  offspring,  having  alone 
received  the  likeness  of  thy  being,"  in  aov  yap  yevoc  ea/iev  ir/c  pl/infia  laxovreg  povvoi. 
A  similar  sentiment  occurs  in  the  "  Golden  Poem,"  "  For  mortals  have  a  divine  descent," 
delov  yap  yevog  earl  ftporoloiv. 


PAUL   AT  ATHENS.  189 

this  appeal  to  the  universal  higher  self-consciousness,  he  goes  on  to  say  ; 
Since  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  we  ought  not  to  believe  that  the 
divinity  is  like  any  earthly  material,  or  any  image  of  human  art.  This 
negative  assertion  manifestly  includes  a  positive  one  ;  we  must  strive  to 
rise  to  the  divinity  by  means  of  that  within  us  which  is  related  to  him. 
Instead  of  carrying  on  the  argument  against  idolatry,  the  apostle  leaves 
his  hearers  to  decide  for  themselves ;  and  presupposing  the  consciousness 
of  guilt — without  attempting  to  develop  it — *he  proceeds  with  the  annun- 
ciation of  the  gospel.  After  God  had  with  great  long-suffering  endured 
the  times  of  ignorance,*  he  now  revealed  the  truth  to  all  men,  and  re- 
quired all  to  acknowledge  it  and  repent.  With  this  was  connected  the 
annunciation  of  the  Redeemer,  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  be  obtained 
through  him,  and  of  his  resurrection  as  the  confirmation  of  his  doctrine, 
and  as  a  pledge  of  the  resurrection  of  believers  to  a  blessed  life,  as  well 
as  of  the  judgment  to  be  passed  by  him  on  mankind. f  As  long  as  the 
apostle  confined  himself  to  the  general  doctrine  of  Theism,  he  was  heard 
with  attention  by  those  who  had  been  used  to  the  lessons  of  Grecian 
philosophy.  But  when  he  touched  upon  that  doctrine  which  most  decid- 
edly marked  the  opposition  of  the  Christian  philosophy  to  that  of  the 
heathen, J  when  he  spoke  of  a  general  resurrection,  he  was  interrupted 
with  ridicule  on  the  part  of  some  of  his  hearers.  Others  said,  We  would 
hear  thee  speak  at  another  time  on  this  matter ;  whether  they  only  intended 

*  Paul  here  gives  us  to  understand,  that  not  mere  negative  unbelief  in  reference  to 
truth  not  known,  but  only  criminal  unbelief  of  the  gospel  offered  to  men,  would  be  an 
object  of  the  divine  judgment.  This  agrees  with  what  he  says  in  the  first  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  heathens,  as  well  as  Jews,  would  be  judged  according  to  the 
measure  of  the  law  known  to  them;  and  with  what  he  says  in  Rom.  iii.  25,  of  the 
"  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,"  ndpeaic  tuv  npoyeyovoruv  u/^aprTj/ndTDV ;  and  a  compar- 
ison of  this  passage  with  Acts  xvii.  30,  shows  the  genuine  Pauline  character  of  the 
speech. 

f  It  is  very  evident  from  the  form  of  the  expressions  in  Acts  xvii.  31,  as  well  as  from 
verse  32,  where  the  mention  of  the  general  resurrection  in  Paul's  speech  is  implied,  that  in 
the  Acts,  we  have  only  the  substance  given  of  what  he  said  ;  as  Schleiermacher  has  also 
observed,  that  after  the  beginning  of  the  address  has  been  reported  in  detail,  we  have  only 
an  abstract  of  the  remainder.  See  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  1845,  p.  37-4  ; 
and  this  relieves  the  address  from  the  reproach  brought  against  it  by  Baur,  who  will  not 
recognize  it  as  a  Pauline  production,  that  the  speaker  so  soon  and  so  abruptly  proceeds  to 
that  which  must  have  given  the  greatest  offence  to  his  hearers.  But  regarding  the  ad- 
dress as  a  fabrication,  it  is  clear,  that  whoever  from  a  Hellenic  point  of  view  could  have 
begun  it  so  skilfully,  could  also  have  continued  and  completed  it  with  corresponding 
skill ;  and  he  would  not,  of  course,  have  failed  to  do  so. 

%  This  is  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  heathen  Octavius,  in  Minucius  Felix,  c.  xi.  : 
"  Ccelo  et  astris,  quae  sic  relinquimus  ut  invenimus,  interitum  denuntiare ;  sibi  mortuis,  ex« 
stinctis,  qui  sicut  nascimur  et  interimus,  aeternitatem  repromittere."  (To  foretell  destruc- 
tion to  the  heaven  and  the  stars  which  we  leave  as  we  find  them ;  to  promise  eternity  to 
ourselves,  dead  and  extinct,  who,  as  we  are  born,  also  perish.)  The  doctrine  of  the  Stoics, 
of  an  dvaG-oixriuoit,  the  regeneration  of  the  universe  in  a  new  'jrm  after  its  destruction, 
has  no  affinity  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  but  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  th« 
pantheistical  views  of  the  Stoics. 


190  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

to  hint  in  a  courteous  manner  to  the  apostle  that  they  wished  him  to 
close  his  address,  or  really  expressed  a  serious  intention  of  hearing  him 
again*  But  this  result  cannot  be  regarded  as  any  impeachment  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  speaker.  He  could  only  do  his  part  to  prepare  his  hear 
ers  for  the  new  truths  he  wished  to  communicate,  and,  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, to  obtain  a  favorable  hearing.  But  after  all,  he  could  not  help 
giving  offence  to  those  who  were  too  much  attached  to  their  Hellenic 
point  of  view  to  admit  of  a  susceptibility  for  anything  higher.  This 
could  in  no  way  be  avoided,  or  to  avoid  it  he  must  have  refrained  from 
publishing  the  gospel  at  all.  There  were  only  a  few  individuals  who 
joined  themselves  to  the  apostle,  listened  to  his  further  instructions,  and 
became  believers.  Among  these  was  a  member  of  the  Areopagite  coun- 
cil, Dionysius,  who  became  the  subject  of  so  many  legends.  The  only 
authentic  tradition  respecting  him  appears  to  be,  that  he  was  the  princi- 
pal instrument  of  forming  a  church  at  Athens,  and  became  its  overseer.f 
While  Paul  was  at  Athens,  Timothy  returned  from  Macedonia,!  but 

*  From  the  silence  of  the  Acts,  we  are  not  to  infer  with  certainty  that  Paul  never  ad- 
dressed these  persons  again. 

f  See  the  account  of  the  Bishop  Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  Eusebius,  in  his  Eccles.  Hist, 
iv.  23.  According  to  some,  the  name  of  this  Dionysius  gave  occasion  to  the  whole  fabri- 
cation of  the  appearance  of  Paul  on  the  Areopagus ;  we  recognise  in  such  an  opinion  the 
same  strange,  topsy-turvy  criticism,  which,  instead  of  finding  in  the  Montanist  Paraclete 
a  reference  to  the  gospel  of  John,  would  rather  find  in  the  gospel  of  John,  as  a  later  piece 
of  patch-work, a  reference  to  the  Montanist  Paraclete! 

\  On  this  point  there  is  much  uncertainty.  According  to  the  Acts,  Silas  and  Timothy 
first  rejoined  Paul  at  Corinth.  But  1  Thess.  iii.  1,  seems  to  imply  the  contrary.  This  pas- 
sage might  indeed  be  thus  understood, — that  Paul  sent  Timothy  from  Bercea  before  hi3 
departure  for  Athens,  to  the  church  in  Thessalonica,  although  he  knew  that  he  should 
now  be  left  in  Athens  without  any  companions,  for  he  wished  to  leave  Silas  in  Bercea. 
Had  he  departed  from  Bercea  alone,  however,  he  would  rather  have  said,  "to  come  to 
Athens  alone,"  epxecdai  etc  'Af^vac  /i6voi.  But  this  he  could  not  say,  since  he  did  not 
depart  to  Athens  alone,  but  with  other  companions.  Meanwhile  the  most  natural  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage  is,  that  Paul,  in  order  to  obtain  information  respecting  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  preferred  being  left  alone  in  Athens,  and  sent  Timothy  from  that  city.  Also,  in 
the  Acts,  xvii.  16,  it  is  implied  that  he  waited  at  Athens  for  the  return  of  Silas  and  Timo- 
thy;  for  though  the  words,  "at  Athens,"  iv  rale  'Adrfvaic,  may  be  referred,  not  to  "wait- 
ed," kicdexofievov,  but  to  the  whole  clause,  still  we  cannot  understand  the  passage  other- 
wise. If  we  had  merely  the  account  in  the  Acts,  we  should  be  led  to  the  conclusion,  by 
a  comparison  of  xvii.  16,  and  xviii.  5,  that  Silas  and  Timothy  were  prevented  from 
meeting  with  Paul  at  Athens,  and  they  first  found  him  again  in  Corinth,  as  he  had  given 
them  notice  that  he  intended  to  go  thither  from  Athens.  But  by  comparing  it  with  what 
Paul  himself  says,  1  Thess.  iii.  1,  we  must  either  rectify  or  fill  up  the  account  in  the  Acts. 
We  learn  from  it  that  Timothy  at  least  met  with  Paul  at  Athens,  but  that  he  thought  it 
necessary  to  send  him  from  thence  to  Thessalonica,  and  that  he  did  not  wait  for  his  return 
from  that  city  to  Athens,  which  may  be  easily  explained.  But  Luke,  perhaps,  had  not  so 
accurate  a  knowledge  of  all  the  particulars  in  this  period  of  Paul's  history ;  he  had,  per- 
haps, learned  only  that  Paul  met  again  at  Corinth  with  Timothy  and  Silas,  and  hence  he 
inferred,  as  he  knew  nothing  of  the  sending  away  of  Timothy  in  the  meantime  from 
Athens  to  Thessalonica,  that  Paul,  after  he  had  parted  from  his  two  companions  at  Bercea, 


PAUL    AT   ATHENS.  lOi 

the  anxiety  of  Paul  f  jr  the  new  church  at  Thessalonioa  induced  him  to 
send  his  young  fellow-laborer  thither,  that  he  might  contribute  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  their  faith  and  their  consolation  under  their  manifold  suf- 
ferings ;  for  Timothy  had  communicated  to  him  many  distressing  accounts 
of  the  persecutions  which  had  befallen  this  church. 

He  travelled  alone  from  Athens,  and  now  visited  a  place  most  im- 
portant for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  the  city  of  Corinth,  the 
metropolis  of  the  province  of  Achaia.  This  city,  within  a  century  and 
a  half  after  its  destruction  by  Julius  Caesar,  once  more  became  the  centre 
of  intercourse  and  traffic  to  the  eastern  and  western  parts  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  for  which  it  was  fitted  by  its  natural  advantages,  namely,  by 
its  two  noted  ports,  that  of  Key^peat  towards  Lesser  Asia,  and  that  of 
Aex<uov  towards  Italy.  Being  thus  situated,  Corinth  became  an  impor- 
tant position  for  spreading  the  gospel  in  a  great  part  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, and  hence  Paul  chose  it,  as  he  had  chosen  other  cities  similarly 
situated,  as  a  place  for  a  long  sojourn.  But  Christianity  had  here  also, 
at  its  first  promulgation,  peculiar  difficulties  to  combat,  and  the  same 
causes  which  hindered  its  reception  at  first,  threatened  at  a  later  period, 
after  it  had  found  entrance,  to  corrupt  its  purity,  both  in  doctrine  and 

rejoined  them  first  at  Corinth.  As  to  Silas,  it  is  possible  that,  on  account  of  the  informa- 
tion he  brought  with  him,  he  was  sent  back  by  Paul  with  a  special  commission  from 
Athens  to  Bercea,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  that  he  had  occasion  to  stay  longer  than 
Timothy  at  Bercea,  and  hence  could  not  meet  him  at  Athens.  It  might  also  be  the  case 
that  Luke  erroneously  concluded,  since  Silas  and  Timothy  both  first  met  Paul  again  at 
Corinth,  that  he  left  both  at  Bercea, — possibly  that  he  left  only  Silas  behind  and  brought 
Timothy  with  himself  to  Athens.  It  favors,  though  it  does  not  establish  this  opinion,  that 
Paul  in  1  Thess.  iii.  1,  alleges  as  the  reason  for  sending  away  Timothy,  not  the  unpleasant 
news  brought  by  Timothy  from  Macedonia,  but  the  hindrances  intervening,  which  rendered 
it  impossible  for  him  to  visit  the  church  in  Thessalonica  according  to  his  intention. 
Schueckenburger,  in  his  learned  essay  on  the  date  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  (in 
the  Studien  der  Evangelischen  Gcisllichkeit  Wiirtembergs,  vol.  vii.  part  1,  1834,  p.  139,) 
(with  which  in  many  points  I  am  happy  to  agree,)  maintains  that  Paul  might  have  charged 
his  two  companions  to  follow  him  quickly  from  Beroea,  because  he  intended  soon  to  leavo 
Athens,  where  he  expected  no  suitable  soil  for  his  missionary  labors.  But  we  have  no 
Bufficient  reason  for  supposing  this.  Paul  found  at  Athens  a  synagogue  for  the  first  scene 
of  his  ministry  as  in  other  cities;  he  felt  himself  compelled,  as  he  says,  to  publish  the 
gospel  to  Greeks  and  to  Barbarians ;  he  knew  it  was  the  power  of  God,  which  would 
conquer  the  philosophical  bliudness  of  the  Greeks  as  well  as  the  ceremonial  blindness  of 
the  Jews,  though  he  well  knew  that  on  both  sides  the  obstacles  were  great.  At  all  events, 
by  some  not  improbable  combinations,  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  and  the  expressions  of 
Paul  may  easily  be  reconciled,  and  we  are  not  therefore  justified  with  Schrader  in  refer- 
ring the  passage  in  1  Thess.  iii.  1,  to  a  later  residence  of  Paul  at  Athens.  All  the  circum- 
stances mentioned  seem  best  to  agree  with  the  period  of  his  first  visit.  Paul  having  been 
obliged,  contrary  to  his  intention,  to  leave  Thessalonica  early,  wished  on  several  occasions 
to  revisit  it ;  his  anxiety  for  the  new  church  there  was  so  great  that  in  his  tender  concern 
for  it,  he  showed  the  great  sacrifice  he  was  ready  to  make  for  it,  by  saying  that  he  was 
willing  to  remain  alone  at  Athens.  In  later  times,  when  there  was  a  small  Christian 
church  at  Athens,  this  would  not  have  beeu  so  great  a  sacrifice. 


192  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

practice.  The  two  opposite  mental  tendencies,  which  at  that  time  espe- 
cially opposed  the  spread  of  Christianity,  were,  on  the  one  side  such  an 
intense  devotedness  to  speculation  and  the  exercise  of  the  intellect  to  the 
neglect  of  all  objects  of  practical  interest  as  threatened  to  stifle  alto- 
gether the  religious  nature  of  men,  that  tendency  which  Paul  designates 
by  the  phrase  "seeking  after  wisdom /"  and,  on  the  other  side,  the 
sensuous  element  mingling  itself  with  the  exercise  of  the  religious  feel- 
ings ;  the  carnal  mind  which  would  degrade  the  divine  into  an  object  of 
sensuous  experience ;  that  tendency  to  which  Paul  applies  the  phrase, 
"  seeking  after  a  sign."  The  first  of  these  tendencies  predominated 
among  the  greater  number  of  those  persons  in  Corinth  who  made  pre- 
tens'ions  to  mental  cultivation,  for  new  Corinth  was  distinguished  from 
the  old  city,  chiefly  by  becoming,  in  addition  to  its  commercial  celebrity, 
a  seat  of  literature  and  philosophy,  so  that  a  certain  tincture  of  literary 
and  philosophical  culture  pervaded  the  city.*  The  second  of  these  ten- 
dencies was  found  among  the  numerous  Jews,  who  were  spread  through 
this  place  of  commerce,  and  entertained  the  common  sensuous  concep- 
tions respecting  the  Messiah.  And  finally,  the  spread  and  efficiency  of 
Christianity  was  opposed  by  that  gross  corruption  of  morals,  which  then 
prevailed  in  all  the  great  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire,  but  in  Corinth 
was  especially  promoted  by  the  worship  of  Aphrodite,  to  whom  a  far- 
famed  temple  was  here  erected,  which  thus  consecrated  the  indulgence 
of  sensuality,  favored  as  it  was  by  the  incitements  constantly  presented 
in  a  place  of  immense  wealth  and  commerce.f 

The  efficiency  of  Paul's  ministry  at  Corinth  was  doubtless  much  pro- 
moted by  his  meeting  with  a  friend  and  zealous  advocate  of  the  gospel, 
at  whose  house  he  lodged,  and  with  whom  he  obained  employment  for 
his  livelihood,  the  Jew  Aquila  from  Pontus,  who  probably  had  a  large 
manufactory  in  the  same  trade  by  which  Paul  supported  himself.  Aquila 
does  not  appear  to  have  had  a  fixed  residence  at  Rome,  but  to  have 
taken  up  his  abode,  at  different  times,  as  his  business  might  require,  in 
various  large  cities  situated  in  the  centre  of  commerce,  where  he  found 
himself  equally  at  home.  But  at  this  time,  he  was  forced  to  leave  Rome 
against  his  will,  by  a  mandate  of  the  Emperor  Claudius,  who  found  in 
the  restless,  turbulent  spirit  of  a  number  of  Jews  resident  at  Rome  (the 

*  In  the  2d  century,  the  rhetorician  Aristides  says  of  this  city  :  aoybv  61  6rj  koI  «a0' 
56bv  tXddv  uv  evpoig  Kal  napd  ruv  dtpvx^v  fiddotg  dv  Kal  uKOvaeiag.  roaovroi  dijaavpol 
ypafi/iuTuv  nepl  iruoav  airr/v,  oiroi  Kal  jiovov  ditoft'ktyEU  Tig,  Kal  Kara  rug  ododg  avrug 
Kal  rag  OTodf  In  tu  yv/ivdata,  rd  difiaaKaXela,  koc  jtadij/iard  re  Kal  laroprj/iara.  (Even 
passing  along  the  street  you  might  find  a  wise  man,  and  hear  and  learn  from  inanimate 
things  ;  so  great  are  the  treasures  of  learning  lying  all  around  it,  wherever  indeed  one  may 
but  look,  even  along  the  thoroughfares  and  porches ;  besides  there  are  gymnasia  and  schools, 
objects  both  of  science  and  of  research.) — Aristid.  in  Neptunum,  ed.  Dindorf,  vol.  1,  p.  40, 

f  The  rhetorician  Dio  Chrysostom  says  to  the  Corinthians:  ttoXiv  oIke'lte  tUv  ovauv  te 
Kal  yEyEVTj/xEvuv  ETva<ppo6tTOTuTT]v.  (You  inhabit  a  city  the  moat  licentious  of  all  that  are, 
or  ever  have  been.)     Orat.  37,  vol.  ii.  p.  119,  ed.  Reiske. 


PAUL   AT    CORINTH.  193 

greater  part  freed-men),*  a  reason  or  a  pretext  for  banishing  all  Jews 
from  that  city.f 

If  Aquila  was  at  that  time  a  Christian,  which  will  easily  account  for 
his  speedy  connexion  with  Paul,  this  decree  of  banishment  certainly  did 
not  affect  him  as  a  Christian,  but  as  classed  with  the  other  Jews,  in  vir- 
tue of  his  Jewish  descent,  and  his  participation  in  all  the  Jewish  religions 
observances.  But  if  the  gospel  had  already  been  propagated  among  the 
Gentiles  at  Rome,  (which  is  not  probable,  for  this  took  place  at  a  later 
period,  by  means  of  Paul's  disciples,  after  his  sphere  of  action  had  been 
much  extended,)  the  Gentile  Christians,  who  received  the  gospel  free 
from  Jewish  observances,  and  had  not  yet  attracted  notice  as  a  particu- 
lar sect,  would  not  have  been  affected  by  a  persecution,  which  was  di- 
rected against  the  Jews,  as  Jews,  on  purely  political  grounds. 


*  There  was  a  particular  quarter  on  the  other  side  of  the  Tiber  inhabited  by  Jews.  See 
PMh-legat.  ad  Caium,  §  23.  r?)i>  nipav  rov  Tifiepewc  norafiov  fieyd^nv  ryr  Pulltjc; 
aTroTOfirjv  Karexofievnvi  kol  oiKov/itvnv  irpbc  'lovSaiuv.  (Across  the  Tiber  a  large  section 
of  Rome  owned  and  occupied  by  Jews.) 

\  The  account  of  Suetonius  in  the  Life  of  Claudius,  c.  25,  "  Judasos  impulsore  Chresto 
assidue  tumultuantes  Roma  expulit,"  (he  expelled  from  Rome  the  Jews,  who,  urged  on  by 
Chrestos,  were  perpetually  exciting  tumults,)  is  of  little  service  in  historical  investigations. 
Because  Suetonius,  about  fifty  years  after  the  event  itself,  mixed  up,  in  a  confused  way, 
what  he  had  heard  of  Christus  as  a  promoter  of  sedition  among  the  Jews,  with  the  ac- 
counts of  the  frequent  tumults  excited  among  them  by  expectations  of  the  Messiah,  we 
are  not  justified  in  concluding  that  this  banishment  of  the  Jews  had  any  real  connexion 
with  Christianity.  Dr.  Baur,  in  his  essay  on  the  Object  and  Occasion  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  in  the  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1836,  part  iii.  p.  110,  thinks,  that  the 
disputes  between  the  Jews  and  Christians  in  Rome,  occasioned  the  disturbances  which  at 
last  brought  on  the  expulsion  of  both  parties,  and  that  this  is  the  fact  which  forms  the 
basis  of  the  account.  But  disputes  among  the  Jews  themselves,  whether  Jesus  was  to 
be  acknowledged  as  the  Messiah,  would  certainly  be  treated  with  contempt  by  the  Roman 
authorities,  as  mere  Jewish  religious  controversies;  see  Acts  xviii.  15.  And  if  Chris- 
tians of  Gentile  descent,  who  did  not  observe  the  Mosaic  law,  were  then  living  at  Rome, 
these,  as  a  genus  tertiuvi,  would  not  have  been  confounded  with  the  Jews,  and  a  decree 
of  banishment  directed  against  the  Jews  would  not  have  affected  them.  They  only  be- 
came subject  to  punishment  by  the  laws  against  the  religiones  peregrinas  et  novas.  We 
can  only  suppose  a  reference  to  political  disturbances  among  the  Jews,  or  to  occurrences 
which  might  have  excited  suspicions  of  this  kind.  This  view  I  must  even  now,  in  the 
fourth  edition,  maintain  in  opposition  to  Dr.  Baur,  (p.  371.)  I  must  still  assert  that  the 
disputes  which  broke  out  in  the  Jewish  assemblies,  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  could 
not  have  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Roman  authorities,  and  that  their  banishment  af- 
fected not  Jews  and  Christians,  but  only  Jews  as  Jews. 

And  this  account  is  of  little  service  in  fixing  the  chronology  of  the  apostolic  history, 
for  Suetonius  gives  no  chronological  mark.  Such  a  mark  would  be  given,  if  we  connect 
the  banishment  of  the  Jews  with  the  senatus  consultum,  de  malhematicis  Italia  pellendis, 
for  here  Tacitus  (Annal.  xii.  52),  gives  the  date  Fausto  Sulla,  Salvio  Othone  Coss.  =  a.  d. 
52.  But  the  chronological  connexion  of  these  two  events  is  very  uncertain,  as  they  pro- 
ceeded from  different  causes.  The  banishment  of  the  astrologers  proceeded  from  sus- 
picions of  conspiracies  against  the  life  of  the  Emperor,  with  which  the  banishment  of  the 
Jews  stood  in  no  sort  of  connexion,  although  it  might  have  had  its  foundation  in  the 
dread  of  political  commotions. 

13 


194  PAULS    SECOND   MISSIONARY   JOURNEY. 

We  cannot  answer  with  certainty  the  question,  whether  Aquila,  on 
his  arrival  at  Corinth,  was  already  a  Christian  ;  for  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined merely  from  the  silence  of  the  Acts,  that  he  was  not  converted  by 
Paul.  In  any  case,  his  intercourse  with  the  apostle  had  great  influence 
in  the  formation  of  his  Christian  views.  Aquila  appears  from  this  time 
as  a  zealous  preacher  of  the  gospel,  and  his  various  journeys  and  changes 
of  residence  furnished  him  with  many  opportunities  for  acting  in  this 
capacity.  His  wife  Priscilla  also  distinguished  herself  by  her  active  zeal 
for  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  so  that  Paul  calls  them  both,  in  Rom.  xvi.  3, 
his  "  helpers  in  Christ  Jesus." 

We  must  suppose  that  the  reception  given  for  the  most  part  at 
Athens  to  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  must  have  left  a  depressing  effect 
on  the  mind  of  the  apostle,  as  far  as  he  was  not  raised  above  all  depress- 
ing considerations  by  a  conviction  of  the  victorious  divine  power  of  the 
gospel.  Hence,  he  himself  says,  that  on  his  arrival  at  Corinth,  he  was 
at  the  utmost  remove  from  attaching  any  importance  to  anything  that 
human  means,  human  eloquence,  and  human  wisdom,  could  effect  towards 
procuring  an  entrance  for  the  publication  of  the  divine  word ;  that  he 
came  and  taught  among  them  with  a  deep  sense  of  his  human  weakness, 
with  fear  arid  trembling  as  far  as  his  own  power  was  concerned  ;  but  at 
the  same  time,  with  so  much  the  greater  confidence  in  the  power  of  God 
working  through  his  instrumentality.  He  had  experienced  at  Athens, 
that  it  availed  him  nothing  to  become  a  Greek  to  the  Greeks,  in  his  mode 
of  exhibiting  divine  truth,  if  the  heart  was  not  opened  to  his  preaching 
by  its  sense  of  spiritual  needl  At  Corinth,  he  was  satisfied  with  the 
simple  annunciation  of  the  Redeemer  who  died  for  the  salvation  of  sinful 
men,  without  adapting  himself,  as  at  Athens,  to  the  taste  of  the  educated 
classes  in  his  style  of  address.  The  greater  part  indeed  of  the  persons 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact  at  Corinth,  were  not,  as  at  Athens,  people 
of  cultivated  minds,  but  belonging  to  the  lower  class,  who  were  destitute 
of  all  refinement ;  for  even  when  Christianity  had  spread  more  widely 
among  the  higher  classes,  he  could  still  say,  that  not  many  distinguished 
by  human  culture  or  rank  were  to  be  found  among  the  Christians,  but 
God  had  chosen  such  as  were  despised  by  the  world,  in  order  to  exem- 
plify in  them  the  power  of  the  gospel ;  1  Cor.  i.  26.  Among  these  people 
of  the  lower  class,  were  those  who  hitherto  had  been  given  up  to  the 
lusts  that  prevailed  in  this  sink  of  moral  corruption,  but  who,  by  the 
preaching  of  the  apostle,  were  awakened  to  repentance,  and  experienced 
in  their  hearts  the  power  of  the  announcement  of  the  divine  forgiveness 
of  sins;  1  Cor.  vi.  11.  Paul  could  indeed  appeal  to  the  miracles  by 
which  his  apostleship  had  been  attested  among  the  Corinthians,  2  Cor. 
xii.  12  ;  but  yet  these  appeals  to  the  senses  were  not  the  means  by  which 
the  gospel  chiefly  effected  its  triumphs  at  Corinth.  As  the  gospel  neces- 
sarily appeared  as  foolishness  to  the  wisdom-seeking  Greeks,  as  long  as 
they  persisted  in  their  conceit  of  wisdom,  so  also  to  the  sign-seeking 
Jews,  as  long  as  they  persisted  in  their  carnal  mind,  unsusceptible  of  the 


PAUL    AT    CORINTH.  195 

spiritual  operations  of  what  was  divine,  and  required  miracles  cognizable 
by  the  senses,  the  gospel  which  announced  no  Messiah  performing  won- 
ders in  the  manner  their  carnal  conceptions  had  anticipated,  would 
always  be  a  stumbling-block.  That  demonstration  which  Paul  made  use 
of  at  Corinth,  was  the  same  which  in  all  ages  has  been  the  firmest  sup- 
port of  the  gospel,  and  without  which  all  miracles  and  all  intellectual 
ability  will  be  in  vain,  the  '•'•demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power" 
1  Cor.  ii.  4;  the  demonstration  of  the  indwelliitg  divine  power  of  the  gospel 
on  minds  rendered  susceptible  by  the  feeling  of  moral  need;  the  demon- 
stration arising  from  the  power  with  which  the  gospel  operates  on  that 
principle  in  human  nature,  which  is  allied  to  God  but  depressed  by  the 
principle  of  sin.  Thus  the  sign-seeking  Jews  who  attained  to  faith,  found 
in  the  gospel  a  "  power  of  God"  superior  to  all  external  miracles,  and  the 
believers  among  the  wisdom-seeking  Greeks  found  a  divine  wisdom,  com- 
pared with  which  all  the  wisdom  of  their  philosophers  appeared  as  nothing 

As  was  usual,  Paul  was  obliged  by  the  hostile  disposition  with  which 
the  greater  part  of  the  Jews  received  his  preaching  in  the  synagogue,  to 
direct  his  labors  to  the  Gentiles  through  the  medium  of  the  Proselytes, 
and  the  new  church  was  mostly  formed  of  Gentiles,  to  whom  a  small 
number  of  Jews  joined  themselves.  That  he  might  devote  all  his  time 
and  strength  without  distraction  to  preaching,  he  soOn  organized  the 
small  company  of  believers  into  a  regular  church,  and  left  the  baptism  of 
those  who  were  brought  to  the  faith  by  his  preaching,  to  be  adminis- 
tered by  those  who  were  chosen  to  fill  the  offices  in  the  church ;  1  Cor. 
i.  16  ;  xvi.  15. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  acceptance  which  the  gospel  here  found  among 
the  heathen,  powerfully  excited  the  rage  of  the  Jews,  and  they  availed 
themselves  of  the  arrival  of  the  new  Proconsul  Annseus  Gallio,  a  brother 
of  Seneca  the  philosopher,  to  arraign  Paul  before  his  tribunal.  Since,  by 
the  laws  of  the  empire,  the  right  was  secured  to  them  of  practising  their 
own  religious  institutions  without  molestation,  they  inferred,  that  who- 
ever caused  division  among  them  by  the  propagation  of  doctrines  opposed 
to  their  own  principles,  encroached  on  the  enjoyment  of  their  privileges, 
and  was  amenable  to  punishment.  But  the  Proconsul,  a  man  of  mild 
disposition,*  showed  no  desire  to  involve  himself  in  the  internal  religious 
controversies  of  the  Jews,  which  must  have  appeared  to  a  Roman  states- 
man as  idle  disputes  about  words ;  and  the  Gentiles  themselves,  on  this 
occasion,  testified  their  disapprobation  of  the  accusers.  The  frustration 
of  this  attempt  against  the  apostle  enabled  him  to  continue  his  labors 
with  less  annoyance  in  this  region,  so  that  their  influence  was  felt  through 
the  whole  province  of  Achaia,  (1  Thess.  i.  7,  8  ;  2  Cor.  i.  1,)  whether  he 
made  use  of  his  disciples  as  instruments,  or  suspended  his  residence  at 

*  Known  by  the  name  of  the  dulcis  Gallio.  Seneca,  Praefat.  Natural,  quest,  iv. 
"  Nemo  mortalium  uni  tarn  dulcis  est,  quam  hie  omnibus."  (No  one  among  mortals  k  sc 
gracious  to  one,  as  he,  to  everybody.) 


196  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

Corinth,  by  a  journey  into  other  parts  of  the  province,  and  then  returned 
again  to  the  principal  scene  of  his  ministry.* 

"Vv'hen  he  had  been  laboring  for  some  time  in  these  parts,  he  received 
from  Timothy,  now  returned  from  Thessalonica,  accounts  of  the  state  of 
the  church  there,  which  were  far  from  pleasing  in  every  respect.  The 
faith  of  the  church  had  indeed  been  steadfast  under  its  persecutions, 
and  their  example  and  zeal  had  promoted  the  further  spread  of  the 
gospel  in  Macedonia,  even  to  Achaia,  but  there  were  many  who  had  not 
been  preserved  pure  from  the  corruption  of  heathen  immorality.  The 
expectation!  of  Christ's  reappearance  had  taken  in  the  minds  of  many  a 
faniitical  direction,  ao  that  they  neglected  their  stated  employments,  and 
expected  to  be  maintained  at  the  expense  of  their  more  opulent  brethren. 
Prophets  rose  up  in  their  assemblies,  whose  addresses  contained  much 
that  was  fanatical;  while  others,  who  were  on  their  guard  against 
these  extravagant  exhibitions,  went  so  far  in  an  opposite  direction  as  to 
put  in  the  same  class  the  manifestations  of  a  genuine  inspiration.  Pro- 
bably from  a  fear  of  undue  religious  excitement,  they  could  not  endure 
that  any  person,  though  he  felt  himself  inwardly  called,  should  give  free 
utterance  to  his  sentiments  in  the  meetings  of  the  church ;  for  to  this 
Paul's  exhortation  appears  to  refer,  in  1  Thess.  v.  1 9,  "  Quench  not  the 
Spirit."  On  all  these  accounts,  he  considered  it  necessary  to  address  an 
epistle  of  encouragement  and  exhortation  to  this  church.J 

*  See  2  Thess.  i.  4,  where  Paul,  in  an  epistle  written  during  the  latter  part  of  his  resi- 
dence at  Corinth,  says,  that  in  several  churches,  and  therefore  not  merely  in  the  Corinthian, 
he  had  spoken  with  praise  of  the  faith  and  zeal  of  the  Thessalonian  church. 

f  The  passages  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  that  relate  to  the  expectation 
of  Christ's  second  coming,  have  altogether  the  impress  of  this  first  age,  looking  forward 
with  ardent  longing  to  his  speedy  return.  Only  in  this  first  period  could  such  exhibitions 
of  fanatical  excitement,  as  were  actually  witnessed  in  the  church  at  Thessalonica  in  con- 
nexion with  this  expectation,  have  made  their  appearance.  Only  then  could  the  appre- 
hension have  arisen,  that  those  who  were  "  asleep"  (1  Thess.  iv.  13)  would  be  far  sur- 
passed in  privilege  by  those  still  living,  who  should  be  witnesses  of  Christ's  second  advent. 
Any  one,  at  a  later  period,  writing  such  an  epistle  under  Paul's  name,  would  certainly 
not  have  encouraged  the  expectation  of  Christ's  advent  being  so  near — an  expectation 
which  would  have  already  been  corrected  by  the  intervening  period.  He  would  rather 
have  had  a  special  interest  to  admonish  them,  not  to  expect  his  coming  too  soon,  that 
they  might  not  be  mistaken  if  it  were  postponed  to  a  later  period.  The  manner  in  which 
the  second  advent  of  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  this  epistle,  instead  of  being,  as  Baur  imagines, 
a  mark  of  its  spuriousness,  is  rather  the  surest  and  most  palpable  proof  that  it  could  have 
been  written  at  no  other  period. 

X  In  this  epistle,  be  evidently  assumes,  that  the  manner  of  his  coming  from  Philippi  to 
Thessalonica  was  still  fresh  in  the  remembrance  of  the  church,  so  that  he  alludes  to  only 
one  residence  among  them,  after  his  arrival  from  Philippi.  "What  Paul  says  in  1  Thess.  i. 
9,  he  could  only  say  at  a  period  which  was  shortly  subsequent  to  his  departure  from 
Thessalonica.  Hence,  it  is  certain,  that  the  epistle  was  written  at  that  juncture,  and  that 
it  is  the  first  among  the  Pauline  epistles  which  have  reached  us,  an  opinion,  with  which 
its  whole  complexion  well  agrees.  The  reasons  against  this  view,  maintained  by  Schrader, 
eorne  of  which  we  have   mentioned  and  endeavored  to  refute,  are  not  convincing.     The 


PAUL   AT   CORINTH.  197 

In  his  epistle,  he  reminds  the  church  of  the  manner  in  which  he  con- 
ducted himself  among  them,  the  example  of  manual  industry  which  he 
set,  and  the  exhortations  which  he  addressed  to  them.*  He  calmed  their 
anxiety  respecting  the  fate  of  those  who  had  died  during  this  period.  He 
warned  them  against  making  attempts  to  determine  the  time  of  the  second 
coming  of  Christ.  That  critical  moment  would  come  unexpectedly  ;  the 
exact  time  could  be  ascertained  by  no  one ;  but  it  was  the  duty  of  Chris- 
tians to  be  always  prepared  for  it.  They  were  not  to  walk  in  darkness, 
lest  that  day  should  overtake  them  as  a  thief  in  the  night ;  as  children 
of  the  light,  they  ought  to  walk  continually  in  the  light  and  the  day ;  and 
to  watch  over  themselves,  that  they  might  meet  the  appearance  of  the 
Lord  with  confidetice.f 

anxiety  of  many  persons  in  reference  to  their  deceased  friends  (iv.  13,)  proves  indeed,  that 
some  of  the  first  Christians  at  Thessakmica  had  already  died,  but  certainly  does  not  justify 
the  conclusion,  that  the  church  must  have  already  existed  a  long  time ;  for  within  a  com- 
paratively short  time,  many,  especially  those  who  wero  in  years  or  in  declining  health  at 
their  conversion,  might  have  died.  Also  the  argument,  that  Paul,  in  this  epistle,  supposes 
the  existence  of  a  church  organized  in  the  usual  manner  with  Presbyters,  will  prove 
nothing  against  the  early  composition  of  this  epistle.  For  why  should  not  Paul  have 
accomplished  all  this  during  his  short  stay  at  Thessalonica,  or  put  matters  in  a  train  for 
its  being  done  soon  after  his  departure?  It  is  evident  from  Acts  xiv.  23,  how  important 
he  deemed  it  to  give  the-  usual  constitution  to  the  churches  as  they  were  forming ;  and 
this  must  have  been  more  especially  the  case  with  a  church  which  he  left  in  such  critical 
circumstances,  even  apart  from  persecutors.  It  is  true,  if  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  First 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  that  no  novice  in  Christianity  should  be  chosen  to  the  office  of  presby- 
ter, had  been  from  the  beginning  an  invariable  principle,  we  might  conclude,  that  so  new 
a  church,  which  must  consist  eutirely  of  novices,  could  have  no  presbytery.  But  there  is 
nothing  to  support  this  conclusion,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  primitive  apostolic  age 
are  against  it.  The  rules  given  in  that  epistle,  as  well  as  many  other  things  in  it,  indicate 
that  it  was  written  in  the  latter  part  of  Paul's  life,  and  in  reference  to  a  church  not  newly 
organized.  And  what  we  find  in  Philip,  iv.  16,  by  no  means  obliges  us  to  assume  a 
second  visit  of  Paul  to  Thessalonica,  after  which  both  epistles  were  written.  He  there 
says,  that  during  the  time  of  the  first  publication  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen,  (which 
cannot  be  referred  to  a  later  period,)  when  he  left  Macedonia,  no  church  excepting  that  at 
Philippi  had  sent  him  a  contribution — first,  when  he  was  in  Thessalonica  before  he  left 
Macedonia,  and  then  once  or  twice  at  Corinth,  during  his  longer  sojourn  there.  2  Cor. 
xi.  9. 

*  All  this  must  certainly  give  the  impression  of  a  person  who  writes  from  the  fresh  lively 
recollection  of  his  own  recent  experiences ;  and  not  the  impression  of  a  designed  recapitu- 
lation made  up  so  as  to  accord  with  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  epistles,  a  mark  of  spurious- 
ness  which  Baur  is  disposed  to  find,  p.  481. 

f  What  Baur  says  against  the  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessaloniaus, 
which  bears  on  the  face  of  it  so  decidedly  a  Pauline  impress,  shows  us  how  hard  it  is  to 
satisfy  these  modern  critics.  If  expressions  similar  to  those  in  the  other  Pauline  epistles 
occur,  they  must  have  been  borrowed  from  them.  On  the  contrary,  if  there  are  turns  of 
expression  which  do  not  occur  in  the  other  Pauline  epistles,  it  is  an  indubitable  sign  of  an 
un-Pauline  origin.  But  one  would  suppose  that  the  conjunction  of  what  is  allied  to  the 
Pauline  epistles,  with  other  things  which  are  not  elsewhere  found  just  so  expressed  by 
Paul,  provided  there  be  nothing  evidently  at  variance  with  the  Pauline  characteristics, 
would  be  rather  an  evidence  of  genuineness;  for  an  individual  who  had  the  Pauline  epis- 


198  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

As  this  epistle  contained  so  many  peculiarly  important  lessons,  exhor 
tations,  and  warnings  for  different  members  of  the  church,  Paul  must 
have  been  earnestly  desirous  that  it  should  be  read  by  all.  Whether  he 
wished  it  to  be  read  before  all  at  their  public  meetings,  or  that  all  should 
have  an  opportunity  of  reading  it  privately,  cannot  be  determined  pre- 
cisely from  the  words*  in  ch.  v.  27.f 

ties  before  him,  and  wished  to  write  another  after  them  in  Paul's  name,  would  have  shown 
himself  as  more  of  a  slavish  imitator.  Baur  finds  something  thoroughly  un-Pauline  in  the 
circumstance  that  the  churches  in  Judea'are  presented  as  a  pattern  to  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians; especially  since  Paul  could  not  have  spoken  of  those  persecutions  without  referring 
to  himself  as  a  chief  partaker  in  the  only  ones  which  could  here  have  been  taken  into  con- 
sideration. So  moreover,  that  extreme  general  hostile  tone  towards  the  Jews,  which  al- 
ludes to  the  odium  generis  humani  cast  upon  the  Jews,  appears  to  Baur  altogether  un- 
Pauline.  But  if  this  had  been  interpolated  by  another  person,  it  would  be  difficult  to  re- 
concile his  being  so  hostilely  disposed  towards  the  Jews  with  his  pointing  out  the  churches 
in  Judea  as  patterns  for  imitation.  Only  in  a  spirit  so  original  and  unfettered  as  Paul's 
could  both  meet  together.  Now,  the  persecutions  which  the  Christians  in  Judea  had  suf- 
fered at  various  times,  and  of  which  he  might  have  been  in  part  an  eye-witness  on  his 
first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion,  he  held  in  fresh  and  lively  remembrance.  In 
this  respect  he  could  name  no  Gentile  church  as  an  object  of  imitation.  How  natural  that 
he  should  here  name  the  parent  church,  animated  as  he  always  was  with  the  conviction 
that  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  to  be  bound  together  in  one  Christian  community! 
The  recollection  that  at  an  earlier  period  he  had  been  so  violent  a  persecutor  of  the  Chris- 
tians, could  least  of  all  prevent  his  so  expressing  himself;  for,  as  he  says,  he  had  since 
been  made  a  new  creature,  and  all  things  had  become  new.  Nor  do  I  know  how  Paul 
could  have  delineated  more  strikingly,  the  ungodliness,  the  inhumanity,  and  the  envy  of 
the  Jews  towards  the  Gentiles,  of  which  in  just  his  last  missionary  journey  he  had  had 
such  freqnent  experience.  The  passage  in  which  he  represents  the  believers  among  the 
Gentiles  as  imitators  of  the  primitive  church  in  Judea,  was  a  natural  occasion  for  mention- 
ing that  the  same  Jews  had  killed  Jesus  and  the  prophets,  and  had  everywhere  perse- 
cuted himself  as  a  witness  of  the  Christian  truth  by  which  the  Gentiles  also  would  partake 
of  salvation.  In  the  accidentally  chosen  expression  kudiuZdvTwv  may  be  traced  the 
fresh  recollection  that  he  had  been  driven  out  from  the  cities  where  he  preached  the 
gospel,  through  the  influence  of  the  Jews  who  had  instigated  the  Gentiles.  At  a  later  pe- 
riod, when  Paul  was  brought  more  into  collision  with  Jewish  Christians  than  with  Jews 
simply,  he  had  less  occasion  for  so  expressing  himself.  Criticism  ought  not  merely  to  con- 
sider the  Pauline  epistles  as  a  whole,  but  study  them  chronologically,  and  carefully  dis- 
tinguish the  various  stages  of  Paul's  literary  activity.  In  reference  to  peculiarities  of 
style,  turns  of  thought,  and  development  of  doctrine,  a  difference  in  them  will  indeed  be 
perceptible,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  have  exactly  those 
characteristics  which  belong  to  the  first  stage,  while  his  other  epistles  of  which  the  genu- 
ineness has  been  disputed,  have,  on  the  contrary,  the  characteristic  peculiarities  of  the  last 
stage. 

*  See  also  Coloss.  iv.  16. 

|  This  wish  appears  perfectly  natural  on  the  first  occasion  of  writing  to  them,  as  in 
every  letter  which  is  intended  to  meet  the  wants  of  many  members  in  a  community,  and  I 
do  not  see  in  it  the  marks  of  an  importance  attributed  to  letter-writing  not  suitable  to  the 
times,  nor  with  what  propriety  Baur  could  say  that  "  this  must  have  been  written  accord- 
ing to  the  views  of  an  age  which  did  not  see  in  the  lette-rs  of  the  apostle  the  natural  me- 
dium of  mental  intercourse,  but  a  sanctuary  to  be  approached  with  all  due  reverence,  so 
that  their  contents  were  to  be  known  as  accurately  as  possible,  particularly  by  means  of 


FIRST    EPISTLE    TO    THE   THESSALONIANS.  100 

After  a  time,  Paul  learned  that  the  epistle  had  not  attained  its  end  ; 
that  the  enthusiastic  tendency  in  the  Thessalonian  church  had  continued 
to  increase.  In  his  former  epistle,  he  had  considered  it  necessary  to 
guard  them  against  both  extremes  ;  to  warn  them  against  the  entii'6 
suppression  of  free  prophetic  addresses,  as  well  as  against  receiving 
every  thing  as  divine  which  pretended  to  be  so,  without  examination. 
The  higher  life  was  to  be  developed  and  expressed  freely  without  harass- 
ing restrictions ;  but  all  claims  to  inspiration  ought  to  be  submitted  to 
sober  examination.*  He  must,  therefore,  have  had  cause  to  suspect  dan- 
ger from  this  quarter,  even  had  he  not  received  more  exact  information. 
But  he  was  subsequently  informed,  that  persons  had  come  forward  in  the 
church  who  professed  to  have  received  revelations  to  the  effect  that  the 
appearance  of  the  Lord  was  close  at  hand.  They  also  endeavored  to 
strengthen  their  assertions  by  distorting  certain  expressions  of  the  apos- 
tle, which  he  had  used  during  his  residence  at  Thessalonica.  But  now 
since  the  epistle  of  Paul  was  so  plainly  opposed  to  the  enthusiastic  ten- 
dency which  aimed  at  fixing  the  exact  time  of  Christ's  second  coming, 
one  of  the  promoters  of  this  error  ventured  so  far  as  to  forge  another 
epistle  in  Paul's  name,  which  might  serve  to  confirm  this  expectation,  in 
which  probably  he  took  advantage  of  the  circumstance,  that  the  apostle 
in  his  first  epistle  had  satisfied  himself  with  urging  what  was  of  practi- 
cal importance  without  giving  a  decided  opinion  on  the  nearness  or  re- 
moteness of  that  great  event.f     Such  forgeries  were  not  at  all  uncom- 


public  reading,"  &c.  This  is  indeed  "  not  seeing  the  woods  on  account  of  the  trees !" 
How  naturally  the  words  in  ch.  v.  27,  are  connected  with  the  preceding  request  "  to  greet 
all  the  brethren  1" 

*  It  appears  to  me  that  1  Thess.  v.  21,  altogether  relates  to  what  immediately  precedes 
— "  prove  all  things  in  the  communications  of  the  prophets,  and  retain  whatever  is  good  ;" 
but  in  verse  22,  he  makes  a  transition  to  a  general  remark,  "that  they  should  keep  them- 
selves at  a  distance  from  every  kind  of  evil,"  with  which  his  prayer  for  the  sanctificatioa 
of  the  whole  man  (y.  23)  naturally  connects  itself. 

f  The  passage  in  2  Thess.  ii.  2,  might,  it  is  true,  be  understood,  as  if  only  the  statements 
in  the  first  epistle  had  been  misrepresented ;  and  it  is  certainly  possible  to  imagine,  that 
they  had  misapplied  Paul's  comparison  of  a  thief  in  the  night,  as  if  he  expected  the 
appearance  of  Christ  to  be  an  event  close  at  hand,  and  only  meant  to  say  that  the 
point  of  time  could  not  be  given  more  distinctly.  But  these  words  of  Paul,  however, 
would  be  more  naturally  understood  of  the  forgery  of  a  letter  in  his  name,  and  the  manner 
in  which  he  guards  against  similar  forgeries,  by  a  postscript  in  his  own  hand,  favors  this 
opinion.  I  canDot  perceive  the  justness  of  Balir's  remark,  p.  49,  "  How  could  Paul  ration- 
ally attach  any  weight  to  such  a  criterion  of  the  genuineness  of  his  epistle,  which  us  soon 
as  it  was  once  known  to  be  such,  would  be  used  so  much  the  more  for  the  purposes  of 
forgery?"  Paul's  Greek  writing  was  probably  not  so  easy  to  be  imitated.  Nor  in  the 
words  nuoy  eniaTolrj  (iii.  17)  can  I  find,  with  Baur,  a  mark  of  spuriousness.  It  by  no 
means  follows,  that  the  author  gave  a  false  explanation  of  Paul's  custom  to  add  something 
in  his  own  handwriting  to  his  epistles.  If  Paul  had  elsewhere  addxl  such  closing  words 
in  autograph  to  testify  his  love  to  the  church,  yet  he  might  have  been  led  by  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  this  church  to  make  use  of  them  here  as  a  criterion  of  its  being  his 
genuine  epistle.     Or  he  migh'.  first  of  all  have  been  led  with  this  view  to  make  such  a 


200  Paul's  second  missionary  journey. 

mon  in  this  century  after  the  beginning  of  the  Alexandrian  period  of 
Kterature,  and  their  authors  were  very  adroit  in  justifying  such  decep- 
tions, for  the  purpose  of  giving  currency  to  certain  principles  and 
opinions.*  That  something  of  this  kind  happened  so  early  in  the  church 
at  Thessalonica,  while  on  the  other  hand  we  find  no  trace  of  it  in  the 
later  epistles  of  Paul,  is  explained  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  that 
church,  the  excited  state  of  its  members,  that  one-sidedness  of  the  Chris- 
tian spirit  which  directed  its  attention  only  to  the  future,  that  limitation 
of  mental  vision  which  did  not  take  in  the  whole  of  Christianity,  but 
gazed  alone  on  the  second  advent.  Such  a  one-sided  religious  interest 
might  easily  be  seduced  to  call  all  means  good  which  would  gratify  its 
indulgence.  In  later  times  Paul  had  far  more  to  do  with  adversaries 
who  disputed  his  apostolic  authority  than  with  false  friends  who  sought 
to  avail  themselves  of  it  for  their  own  ends.  His  later  false  adherents 
were  more  sober,  and  free  from  the  enthusiastic  tendency  of  the  Thessa- 
lonians.  Thus  everything  is  explained  by  a  perfectly  consistent  and 
genuine  historical  impress,  bearing  marks  of  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  this  church.  What  purpose  would  it  serve  the  author  of  a  forged 
epistle  to  warn  them  of  other  epistles  also  forged  in  Paul's  name  ?  This 
morbid  tendency  also  operated  injuriously  in  producing  idleness,  and  a 
neglect  of  a  person's  own  affairs,  united  with  a  prying,  intermeddling 
curiosity  respecting  the  concerns  of  others.  Paul,  therefore,  thought  it 
necessary  to  write  a  second  epistle  to  Thessalonica.f  In  this  epistle,  for 
the  purpose  of  guarding  them  against  the  expectation  of  an  immediate 
approach  of  that  last  decisive  period,  he  directed  their  attention  to  the 
signs  of  the  times  which  would  precede  it.  The  revelation  of  the  evil 
that  opposed  itself  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  a  self-idolatry  excluding  the 
worship  of  the  living  God,  would  first  reach  its  utmost  limit.  Delu- 
sive errors,  by  a  hypocritical  show  of  godliness,  and  by  extraordinary 
powers,  apparently  miraculous,  would  deceive  those  who  had  not  fol- 
lowed the  simple,  unadulterated  truth.  The  rejection  of  the  True  and 
the  Divine  would  be  punished  by  a  subjection  to  falsehood.  Those  per- 
sons would  be  ensnared  by  the  arts  of  deception,  who,  because  they  had 
suppressed  the  sense  of  truth  in  their  hearts,  deserved  to  be  deceived, 


closing  addition,  and  afterwards,  when  this  view  had  been  lost  sight  of,  still  on  other  ac- 
counts to  have  retained  the  practice.  But  he  must  have  foreseen  that  he  would  have  oc- 
casion to  write  several  other  letters  to  the  churches.  We  are  not  at  all  justified  in  assert- 
ing that  the  greatest  part  of  Paul's  correspondence  has  been  handed  down  to  us. 

*  The  Bishop  Dionysius  very  much  lamented  the  falsification  of  letters  which  he  had 
written  to  various  churches.     Euseb.  iv.  23. 

f  He  had  at  that  time  travelled  from  Corinth  to  Achain,  and  founded  other  churches. 
Already  he  had  sustained  many  conflicts  with  the  enemies  of  the  gospel ;  he  had  occasion 
to  request  the  intercessory  prayers  of  the  churches,  that  he  might  be  delivered  from  the 
machinations  of  evil-minded  men ;  for  such  were  not  wanting,  who  were  unsusceptible  of 
receiving  the  gospel ;  2  Thess.  iii.  2.  This  reminds  us  of  the  above-mentioned  accusations 
made  by  the  Jews  against  Paul. 


SECOND   EPISTLE   TO  THE  TIIESSALONIANS.  201 

and  by  their  own  criminality  had  prepared  themselves  for  all  the  decep- 
tions of  falsehood.  Then  would  Christ  appear,  in  order  by  his  victori- 
ous divine  power  to  destroy  the  kingdom  of  evil  after  it  had  attained  its 
widest  extension,  and  to  consummate  the  kingdom  of  God.  As  signs 
similar  to  those  which  prognosticate  the  last  decisive  and  most  triumph- 
ant epoch,  are  repeated  in  all  the  great  epochs  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
as  it  advances  victoriously  in  conflict  with  the  kingdom  of  evil,  Paul 
might  believe  that  he  recognised  in  many  sigjis  of  his  own  time,  the  com- 
mencement of  the  final  epoch.  By  the  light  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  intimations  of  Christ*  himself,  he  discerned  the  general 
law  of  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  applicable  to 
all  the  great  epochs  down  to  the  very  last,f  but  he  was  not  aware  that 
similar  phenomena  must  often  recur  until  the  arrival  of  the  final  crisis.^ 

Thus  Paul  labored  during  another  half-year  for  the  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity in  these  parts,  and  then  concluded  that  second  period  of  his  minis- 
try among  the  heathen  which  began  with  the  second  missionary  journey. 
We  are  now  arrived  at  a  resting-place,  from  which  we  shall  proceed  to 
a  new  period  in  his  ministry,  and  in  the  history  of  the  propagation  of 
the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles. 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  317,  367. 

f  But  in  the  signs  of  this  last  epoch  which  are  specially  noticed  in  this  epistle,  we  find 
proofs  of  their  proceeding  from  this  period  of  the  apostolic  age,  rather  than  from  a  later 
time.  At  a  later  period,  the  specification  of  heresies  as  omens  of  the  approach  of  Anti- 
christ would  certainly  not  havo  been  wanting. 

%  When  persons  have  atteupted  to  determine  with  exactness  the  signs  of  the  times 
given  by  Paul,  they  have  failed  in  many  points.  In  the  first  place,  they  have  sought,  in 
later  ages,  for  the  appearances  which  the  apostle  specifies,  while  he  refers  to  appearances 
in  his  own  age,  or  to  those  which  they  seemed  to  forbode.  In  other  important  periods, 
which  preceded  remarkable  epochs  for  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  signs 
might  be  found  indeed,  similar  to  those  which  Paul  has  here  described.  Still  we  should 
not  be  justified  in  saying  that  these  signs  in  this  particular  form  were  consciously  present 
to  Paul's  mind.  And  thus  we  should  fall  into  error,  if,  in  a  one-sided  way,  we  expected  to 
find  what  is  anti-Christian  only  in  manifestations  of  one  special  kind  in  the  history  of  the 
church,  instead  of  recognising  a  Christian  truth  lying  at"the  basis  of  such  manifestations  and 
finding  in  other  appearances  also  the  same  anti-Christian  spirit  by  which  the  Christian 
principle  was  here  disturbed,  and  at  last  wholly  obscured.  When  too,  these  signs  have  been 
looked  for  in  the  actual  situation  of  the  apostle,  the  defectiveness  of  our  knowledge  of  his 
situation,  and  of  the  peculiar  views  of  his  times,  has  been  forgotten.  Or  instead  of  esti- 
mating the  great  views  respecting  the  development  of  the  kirgdom  of  God,  which  the 
apostle  here  unfolds,  according  to  their  essential  ideas,  the  kerne  has  been  thrown  away, 
and  the  shell  retained,  and  they  have  been  compared  with  the  lewish  fables  respecting 
Antichrist 


202  Paul's  journey  to  antiooh. 


CHAPTEE    YII. 

THE    APOSTLE    PAUL'S     JOURNEY    TO     ANTIOCH,    AND     HIS     RENEWED     MIS- 
SIONARY   1ABORS    AMONG   THE    HEATHEN. 

After  P.'iul  had  labored  during  another  half-year  for  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Christian  church  in  Corinth  and  Achaia,  he  resolved,  before 
attempting  to  form  new  churches  among  the  heathen,  to  visit  once  more 
that  city  .which  had  been  hitherto  the  metropolis  of  the  Christian-Gen- 
tile world,  Antioch,  where  possibly  he  had  arranged  a  meeting  with  other 
publishers  of  the  gospel.  This  was  no  doubt  the  principal,  but  probably 
not  the  only  object  of  his  journey.  He  felt  it  to  be  very  important  to 
prevent  the  outbreak  of  a  division  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile 
Christians,  and  to  take  away  from  the  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians 
every  even  apparent  ground  for  their  accusation,  that  he  was  an  enemy 
of  their  nation  and  of  the  religion  of  their  fathers.  On  this  account,  he 
resolved  to  revisit  at  the  same  time  the  metropolis  of  Judaism,  in  order 
publicly  to  express  his  gratitude  to  the  God  of  his  fathers  in  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem,*  according  to  a  form  much  approved  by  the  Jews,  and 
thus  practically  to  refute  these  imputations.  There  was  at  that  time 
among  the  Jews  a  religious  custom,  arising  most  probably  from  a  modi- 
fication of  the  Nazarite  vow,  for  those  who  had  been  visited  with  sick- 
ness or  any  other  great  calamity  to  vow,  that  if  they  were  restored,  they 
would  bring  a  thank-offering  to  Jehovah  in  the  temple,  would  abstain 
from  wine  for  thirty  days,  and  would   shave  their  heads.f     Paul  had 

*  If  it  had  been  of  so  much  importance  to  the  author  of  the  Acts  for  his  apologetical 
or  conciliatory  purpose,  as  Baur  maintains,  to  notice  Paul's  journeys  to  the  feasts  at  Jeru- 
salem, why  should  he  allude  so  slightly  to  the  journey  of  which  we  are  here  speaking, 
(xviii.  18,  22,)  so  that  it  has  given  occasion  to  moot  the  question,  whether  he  actually 
visited  Jerusalem  at  that  time?  Here,  certainly,  nothing  is  less  shown  than  such  a  pur- 
pose. Baur  assumes,  (p.  194,)  that  the  words  which  are  favorable  to  his  opinion  (xviii. 
21,)  are  decidedly  genuine,  though,  to  say  the  least,  they  are  very  suspicious.  But  these 
words,  even  admitting  them  to  be  genuine,  by  no  means  prove  such  a  purpose  in  the 
Acts,  and  contain  nothing  irreconcilable  witli  the  Pauline  point  of  view:  for  all  turns  upon 
the  question,  how  the  necessity  he  speaks  of  is  to  be  understood?  and  of  this  nothing 
more  is  said. 

f  Josephus,  de  Bello  Jud.  ii.  15,  roOf  yap  rj  vogg>  KaraTrovov/isvovg  fj  Tiaiv  ulTiaic 
uvuynaic  tdng  evxeoBai  npb  /T  rj/nepuv,  ?j(  dwoduaeiv  fiilloLtv  dvaiag,  oivov  te  ufi^eadat 
kcu  ijvpr/oaodai  rug  Kofiaq.  It  appears  to  me  quite  necessary  to  change  the  aorist  in  the 
last  clause  into  the  future  tjvpT/oeodai ;  and  I  would  translate  the  passage  thus — "  they 
were  accustomed  to  vow  that  they  would  refrain  from  wine  and  shave  their  bair  thirty 
days  before  the  presentation  of  the  offering."  From  comparing  this  with  the  Nazarite 
vow,  we  might  indeed  conclude  that  the  shaving  of  the  hair  took  place  at  the  end  of  tiiirty 
days,  as  Meyer  thinks  in  his  commentary ;  but  the  words  of  Josephus  do  not  agree  with 
this  supposition,  for  we  cannot  be  allowed  to  interpolate  another  period  before  the  ^vp?/aea- 
6at,  "and  at  the  end  of  these  thirty  days."  Also  what  follows  in  Josephus  is  opposed 
to  it,  and  Paul's  shaving  his  hair  several  weeks  before  his  arrival  at  Jerusalem,  will  not 
harmonize  with  such  a  supposition. 


PAUL   AT   JERUSALEM.  203 

probabl}  resolved,  on  the  occasion  of  his  deliverance  from  some  danger 
during  his  last  residence  at  Corinth,  or  on  his  journey  from  that  city,* 
publicly  to  express  his  grateful  acknowledgments  in  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem.  The  form  of  his  doing  this  was  in  itself  a  matter  of  indifference, 
and  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  wisdom,  he  felt  no  scruple  to  become  in 
respect  of  form,  to  the  Jews  a  Jew,  or  to  the  Gentiles  a  Gentile.  When 
he  was  on  the  point  of  sailing  with  Aquila  to  Lesser  Asia  from  Cen- 
chrtea,  he  began  the  fulfilment  of  his  vow.f  .  He  left  his  companion  with 
his  wife  behind.at  Ephesus,  whither  he  promised  to  return,  and  hastened 
to  Jerusalem,  where  he  visited  the  church,  and  presented  his  offering  in 
the  temple.J     He  then  travelled  to  Antioch,  where  he   stayed  a  long 

*  From  how  many  dangers  he  was  rescued,  and  how  much  would  be  required  to  com- 
plete the  narrative  given  in  the  Acts,  we  learn  from  2  Cor.  xi.  26,  27. 

t  Unnecessary  difficulties  have  been  raised  respecting  Acts  xviii.  18.  Paul,  in  the 
18th  verse,  and  in  those  immediately  following,  is  the  only  subject;  and  the  words  relating 
to  Aquila  and  Priscilla  are  merely  parenthetical.  All  that  is  here  said  must  therefore  be 
referred  to  Paul  and  not  to  Aquila,  who  is  mentioned  only  incidentally.  Schneckenbur- 
ger,  in  his  work  on  the  Acts,  p.  66,  finds  a  reason  for  mentioning  such  an  unimportant 
circumstance  respecting  a  subordinate  person  in  this,  that  a  short  notice  of  a  man,  who  for 
half  a  year  lived  in  the  same  house  as  Paul,  would  serve  as  an  indirect  justification  of  the 
apostle  against  the  accusations  of  his  Judaizing  opponents  :  but  this  is  connected  with  the 
whole  hypothesis,  of  which,  for  reasons  already  given,  I  cannot  approve.  Besides,  Aquila 
could  not  have  taken  such  a  vow,  because  he  did  not  travel  to  Jerusalem,  where  the  offer- 
ing must  be  presented.  It  might,  therefore,  be  supposed  that  he  had  made  a  vow  of 
another  kind,  that  he  would  not  allow  his  hair  to  be  cut  till  he  had  left  Corinth  in  safety, 
like  the  Jews  who  bound  themselves  by  a  vow  to  do  or  not  to  do  something,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, not  to  take  food  till  they  had  accomplished  what  they  wished ;  compare  Acts  xxiii. 
14,  and  the  legends  from  the  EvayytMov  nad'  'Efipaiovc,  in  Jerome  de  v.  i.  c.  ii.  But  such 
unmeaning  folly  no  one  can  attribute  to  Aquila.  And  Luke  would  hardly  have  related 
any  thing  so  insignificant  of  Aquila,  who  was  not  the  hero  of  his  narrative.  But  Meyer 
thinks  he  has  found  a  special  proof  that  this  relates  not  to  Paul  but  to  Aquila,  because, 
in  Acts  xviii.  18,  the  name  of  Priscilla  is  mentioned,  not  as  it  is  in  v.  2  and  26,  and  con- 
trary to  the  usage  of  antiquity,  with  a  design  to  make  the  reference  to  Aquila  more  pointed. 
We  might  allow  some  weight  to  this  consideration,  if  we  did  not  find  the  same  arrange- 
ment of  the  names  in  Rom.  xvi.  3,  and  2  Tim.  iv.  19.  "We  shall  find  a  common  ground  of 
explanation  for  what  appears  a  striking  deviation  from  the  customs  of  antiquity  in  the  fact, 
that  although  Priscilla  was  not  a  public  instructress,  which  would  have  been  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  the  church,  yet  she  was  distinguished  even  more  than  her  husband  for  her 
Christian  knowledge,  and  her  zeal  for  the  promotion  of  the  kingdom  of  God;  that  in  this 
respect  Paul  stood  in  a  more  intimate  relation,  a  closer  alliance  of  spirit  to  her,  as  Bleek 
has  suggested  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  422.  And  thus  we 
find  in  this  undesigned  departure  from  the  prevailing  usage,  on  a  point  so  unimportant  in 
itself;  an  indication  of  the  higher  dignity  conferred  so  directly  by  Christianity  on  the 
female  sex. 

|  The  words  in  Acts  xviii.  21,  cannot  prove  that  Paul  travelled  to  Jerusalem,  for  the 
original  expression  only  makes  it  highly  probable  ;  "  I  will  return  to  you  again,  God  wil- 
ling;" and  all  the  rest  is  only  a  gloss.  If,  therefore,  we  do  not  find  the  journey  to  Jeru- 
salem indicated  in  the  "gone  up,"  dvaj3ac,  and"  went  down,"  Karefiri,  of  v.  22,  we  must 
assume  that  Paul  on  this  journey  came  only  as  far  as  Antioch,  and  not  to  Jerusalem,  and 
then  the  interpretation  of  Acts  xviii.  18,  given  in  the  text,  must  be  abandoned.  It  is  also 
remarkablo  that  Luke,  in  referring  to  Paul's  sojourn  at  Jerusalem,  should  mention  only  hia 


204  Paul's  journey  to  antioch. 

time,  and  met  with  Barnabas,  and  other  friends  and  former  associates 
in  publishing  the  gospel.  The  apostle  Peter  also  joined  the  company  of 
preachers  of  the  gospel  here  assembled : — Jewish  and  heathen  Christians, 
and  apostles  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Gentiles,  united  in  true  Christian 
fellowship  with  one  another,  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  resolu- 
tions adopted  by  the  council  at  Jerusalem. 

But  this  beautiful  unanimity  was  disturbed  by  certain  Judaizing  zealots, 
who  came  from  Jerusalem  probably  with  an  evil  design,  since  what  they 
had  heard  of  the  free  publication  of  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  was 
offensive  to  their  contracted  feelings.  For  a  considerable  time  the  phar- 
isaically-minded Jewish  Christians  appeared  to  have  been  silenced  by  the 
apostolic  decisions,  but  they  could  not  be  induced  to  give  up  their  oppo- 
sition, so  closely  connected  with  their  narrow,  exclusively  Jewish  mode 
of  thinking,  to  a  completely  free  and  independent  gospel.  The  constant 
enlargement  of  Paul's  sphere  of  labor  among  the  heathen,  of  which  they 
became  more  fully  aware  by  his  journeys  to  Jerusalem  and  Antioch, 
excited  afresh  their  suspicion  and  jealousy.  Though  they  professed  to 
be  delegates  sent  by  James  from  Jerusalem,*  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
they  were  justified  in  so  doing;  for  before  this  time  such  Jadaizers  had 
falsely  assumed  a  similar  character.  These  persons  were  disposed  not  to 
acknowledge  the  uncircumcised  Gentile  Christians,  who  observed  no  part 
of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law,  as  genuine  Christian  brethren,  as  brethren 
in  the  faith,  endowed  with  privileges  equal  to  their  own  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah.  Since  they  looked  upon  them  as  still  unclean,  they  refused 
to  eat  with  them.  The  same  Peter  who  had  at  first  asserted  so  emphat- 
ically the  equal  rights  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  and  afterwards  at  the 
last  apostolic  convention  had  so  strenuously  defended  them,  now  allowed 
himself  to  be  carried  away  by  a  regard  to  his  countrymen,  and  for  the 
moment  was  faithless  to  his  principles.  We  here  recognise  the  old 
nature  of  Peter,  which,  though  conquered  by  the  spirit  of  the  gospel, 
was  still  active,  and  on  some  occasions  regained  the  ascendency  —  the 
same  Peter  who,  after  he  had  borne  the  most  impressive  testimony  to  the 

saluting  the  church,  and  say  nothing  of  the  presentation  of  his  offering  at  the  temple ;  and 
that  James,  who  afterwards,  on  Paul's  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  advised  him  to  a  similar  line 
of  conduct,  should  not  have  appealed  to  the  example  now  given  of  his  accommodation  to 
the  feelings  of  the  Jews.  But  Luke  is  never  to  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  a  history  com 
plete  in  all  its  parts,  but  simply  as  a  writer  who,  without  historical  art,  put  together  what  he 
heard  and  saw,  or  what  became  known  to  him  by  the  reports  of  others.  Hence  he  narrates 
several  less  important  circumstances,  and-  passes  over  those  which  would  be  more  impor- 
tant for  maintaining  the  connexion  of  the  history.  Also,  to  a  reader  familiar  with  Jewish 
customs,  it  might  be  sufficiently  clear  that  Paul,  according  to  what  is  mentioned  in  xviii. 
18,  must  have  brought  an  offering  to  Jerusalem.  At  all  events,  if  we  wish  to  refer  v.  22 
only  to  Caesarea,  the  dvafiug  must  be  superfluous,  and  the  nariflr)  would  not  suit  the  geo- 
graphical relation  of  Caesarea  to  Antioch. 

*  This  is  not  necessarily  contained  in  the  words,  "  certain  ones  from  James,"  rivig  diro 
'laKufSov,  which  may  simply  mean  that  these  persons  belonged  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
over  which  Jamea  presided. 


PATH.   AT   ANTTOCH.  205 

Redeemer,  at  the  sight  of  danger  for  an  instant  denied  him.  The  exam- 
ple of  an  apostle  whose  character  stood  so  high,  influenced  other  Chris- 
tians of  Jewish  descent,  so  that  even  Barnabas  ceased  to  hold  inter- 
course with  Gentile  Christians.  Paul,  who  condemned  what  was  evil, 
without  respect  to  persons,  called  it  an  act  of  hypocrisy.  He  alone  re- 
mained faithful  to  his  principles,  and  in  the  presence  of  all  administered 
a  severe  reprimand  to  Peter,  and  laid  open  the  inconsistency  of  his  con- 
duct. "  Why,  if  thou  thyself,"  he  said,  "  although  thou  art  a  Jew,  hast 
no  scruple  to  live  as  a  Gentile  with  the  Gentiles,  why  wilt  thou  force  the 
Gentiles  to  become  Jews  ?  We  are  born  Jews — toe,  if  the  Jews  are 
right  in  their  pretensions,  were  not  sinners  like  the  Gentiles,  but  clean 
and  holy  as  born  citizens  of  the  theocratic  nation.  But  by  our  own 
course  of  conduct,  we  express  our  contrary  conviction.  With  all  our 
observance  of  the  law,  we  have  acknowledged  ourselves  to  be  sinners 
who  are  in  need  of  justification  as  well  as  others,  well  knowing  that  by 
works,  such  as  the  law  is  able  to  produce,*  no  man  can  be  justified 
before  God  ;  but  justification  can  only  be  attained  by  faith  in  Christ,  and 
having  been  convinced  of  this,  we  have  sought  it  by  him  alone.  But 
this  conviction  we  contradict,  if  we  seek  again  for  justification  by  the 
works  of  the  law.  We,  therefore,  present  ourselves  again  as  sinners  f 
needing  justification ;  and  Christ,  instead  of  justifying  us  from  sin,  has 
deprived  us  of  the  only  means  of  justification,  and  led  us  into  sin,  if  it  be 
sin  to  consider  ourselves  freed  from  the  law.     Far  be  this  from  us."J 

*  ¥e  may  here  notice  briefly  what  will  be  more  fully  developed  when  we  come  to 
treat  of  the  Apostolic  Doctrine,  that  Paul  by  spyoir  vo/iiov  understands  works  which  a  com- 
pulsory, threatening  law  may  force  a  man  to  perform  in  the  absence  of  a  holy  disposition. 
The  idea  comprehends  the  mere  outward  fulfilling  of  the  law,  and  has  reference  to  the 
moral  as  well  as  ritual  law.  Both  these,  which  are  so  closely  connected  in  Judaism, 
maintain  their  real  importance  only  as  an  expression  of  the  truly  pious  disposition  of 
SiKatoavvrj.  Reference  to  the  moral  or  the  ritual  law  predominates  only  according  to  the 
varied  antithesis  of  idea.    Tn  this  passage  a  special  reference  is  made  to  the  ritual. 

f  The  words,  Gal.  ii.  18,  "If  what  I  have  destroyed  (the  Mosaic  law)  I  build  up  again 
(like  Peter,  who  had  practically  testified  again  to  the  universal  obligation  of  the  Mosaic 
law)  I  must  look  upon  myself  as  a  transgressor  of  the  law,  as  a  sinner."  (Paul  here  sup- 
poses Peter  to  express  the  conviction  that  he  had  done  wrong  in  departing  from  the  law ; 
that  he  was  guilty  of  transgressing  a  law  that  was  still  binding.)  I  cannot  perfectly  agree 
with  Ruckert's  exposition,  which  makes  these  words  to  be  used  by  Paul  in  reference  to 
himself.  For  this  general  proposition  would  not  be  correct,  "  "Whoever  builds  up  again 
what  he  has  pulled  down  pursues  a  wrong  course."  If  he  had  done  wrong  in  pulling 
down,  he  would  do  right  in  building  up  what'had  been  pulled  down  ;  and  even  the  oppo- 
nents of  Paul  maintained  the  first,  they  could  not,  therefore,  be  affected  by  that  proposi- 
tion, and  the  logical  Paul  would  have  taken  good  care  not  to  express  it. 

f  Paul's  reprimand  of  Peter  (Gal.  ii.)  appears  to  reach  only  as  far  as  the  eighteenth 
verse,  excl.  What  follows,  by  the  transition  from  the  plural  to  the  singular,  and  by  tho 
"for"  yap,  is  shown  to  be  a  commentary  by  Paul  on  some  expressions,  which,  uttered  in 
the  warmth  of  feeling,  might  be  somewhat  obscure,  and  is  evidently  not  a  continuation  of 
his  address.  As  to  the  date  of  this  interview  with  Peter,  we  readily  allow  that  we  can- 
not attain  to  absolute  certainty.  Paul  himself  narrates  the  occurrence  immediately  after 
speaking  of  that  journey  to  Jerusalem,  which  we  found  reasons  for  considering  as  his 


206  PAUL   AT   ANTIOCH. 

If  we  fix  this  controversy  of  Paul  and  Peter,*  which  as  the  following 
history  shows,  produced  no  permanent  separation  between  them,  exactly 
at  this  period,  it  will  throw  much  light  on  the  connexion  of  events.  Till 
now  the  pacification  concluded  at  Jerusalem  between  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians  had  been  maintained  inviolate.  Till  now  Paul  had 
had  to  contend  only  with  Jewish  opponents,  not  with  Judaizers,  in  the 
churches  of  Gentile  Christians  ;  but  now  the  opposition  between  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians,  which  the  apostolic  resolutions  had  re- 
pressed, again  made  its  appearance.  As  in  this  capital  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity, which  formed  the  central  point  of  Christian  missions,  the  con- 
troversy first  arose,  so  exactly  in  the  same  spot  it  broke  forth  afresh, 
notwithstanding  the  measures  taken  by  the  apostles  to  settle  it ;  and 
having  once  been  renewed,  it  spread  itself  through  all  the  churches 
where  there  was  a  mixture  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Here  Paul  had  first 
to  combat  that  party,  whose  agents  afterwards  persecuted  him  in  every 
scene  of  his  labors.  It  might  at  first  appear  strange  that  this  division 
should  break  out  exactly  at  that  time ;  at  the  very  time  when  the  man- 
ner in  which  Paul  had  just  appeared  at  Jerusalem,  having  become  to  the 
Jews  a  Jew,  might  have  served  to  make  a  more  favorable  impression  on 
the  minds  of  those  Christians  who  were  still  attached  to  Judaism.  But 
although  it  might  thus  operate  on  the  more  moderate  among  them,  yet 
the  event  showed  that,  on  the  fanatical  zealots,  whose  principles  were  too 
antagonistic  to  admit  of  their  being  reconciled  to  him,  it  produced  quite 

third.  And  accordingly,  we  might  suppose  that  this  event  followed  the  apostolic  conven- 
tion at  Jerusalem.  And  certainly  many  persons  might  have  been  induced,  by  the  report 
of  what  had  taken  place  among  the  Gentile  Christians  (which  to  Jewish  Christians  must 
have  appeared  so  very  extraordinary),  to  resort  to  the  assembly  of  the  Gentile  Christians 
at  Antioch,  partly  to  be  witnesses  of  the  novel  transactions,  and  partly  out  of  suspicion. 
According  to  what  we  have  before  remarked,  it  is  not  impossible  that  these  Judaizers, 
Boon  after  the  resolutions  for  acknowledging  the  equal  rights  of  Gentile  Christians  were 
passed,  became  unfaithful  to  them,  because  they  explained  them  differently  from  their 
original  intention.  But  there  is  greater  probability  that  these  events  did  not  immediately 
succeed  the  issuing  of  those  resolutions.  It  is  by  no  means  evident  that  Paul,  in  this  pas- 
sage of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  intended  to  observe  chronological  exactness.  He 
rather  appears  to  be  speaking  of  an  event  which  was  quite  fresh  in  his  memory,  and  had 
happened  only  a  short  time  before.  Besides  the  two  suppositions  here  mentioned,  a  third 
is  possible,  which  has  been  advocated  by  Hug  and  Sneckenburger ;  namely,  that  this 
event  took  place  before  the  apostolic  convention.  But  though  Paul  here  follows  no  strict 
chronological  order,  yet  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  would  not  place  the  narrative  of 
an  event,  so  closely  connected  with  the  controversies  which  gave  occasion  to  his  confer- 
ences with  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  at  the  beginning,  instead  of  letting  it  follow  as  sup- 
plementary. 

*  Confessedly  a  mistaken  reverence  for  the  apostle  led  many  persons  in  the  ancient 
(especially  the  eastern)  church  to  a  very  unnatural  view  of  this  controversy.  In  order 
that  no  fault  might  be  found  with  Peter's  course,  they  adopted  the  notion  that  Peter  and 
Paul  had  an  understanding  with  one  another;  that  both — the  one  for  the  advantage  of 
the  Jews,  the  other  for  the  advantage  of  the  Gentile  Christians — committed  an  ojfkiosum 
mendacium.  Augustin,  in  his  Epistle  to  Jerome,  and  in  his  book  De  Mendacio,  has  ad- 
mirably combated  this  prejudice,  and  the  false  interpretation  founded  upon  it. 


PAUL   IN"   GALATIA    AND   PURYGIA.  207 

an  opposite  effect.  The  man  who  had  spoken  so  freely  of  the  law,  who 
had  always  so  strenuously  maintained  the  equal  rank  of  the  uncircum- 
cised  Gentile  Christians  with  the  Jewish  Christians,  who  had  been  con- 
demned by  them  as  a  despiser  of  the  law,  this  man,  they  thought,  had 
no  right  to  represent  himself  as  one  of  the  believing  Jewish  people. 
They  well  knew  how  to  make  use  of  what  he  had  done  at  Jerusalem  to 
his  disadvantage ;  and  by  representing  his  actions  in  a  false  light,  they 
accused  him  of  inconsistency,  and  of  artfuUy  attempting  to  flatter  the 
Gentile  Christians. 

The  influence  of  this  party  soon  extended  itself  through  the  churches 
in  Galatia  and  Achaia.  It  is  true  that  Paul,  when,  after  leaving  his 
friends  at  Antioch,  he  visited  once  more  the  churches  in  Phrygia  and 
Galatia  on  his  way  to  Ephesus,  whither  he  had  promised  to  come  on  his 
return,  observed  no  striking  change  among  them.*     But  still,  he  re- 


*  He  expresses  to  the  Galatian  churches  his  astonishment  that  they  had  deserted,  so 
soon  after  his  departure,  the  evangelical  doctrine  for  which  they  had  before  shown  so 
much  zeal,  Gal.  i.  6.  As  several  modern  writers  (particularly  Riickert)  have  maintained 
it  as  beyond  dispute,  that  Paul,  during  his  second  residence  among  the  Galatian  churches, 
had  to  oppose  their  tendency  to  Judaism,  we  must  examine  more  closely  the  grounds  of 
this  assertion.  As  to  Gal.  i.  9,  I  cannot  acknowledge  as  decisive  the  reason  alleged  by 
Riickert,  Usteri,  and  Schott,  against  these  words  being  an  impassioned  asseveration  of  the 
sentiment  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  therefore  of  their  relating  to  what  he  had  said  when 
last  with  them.  "Why  might  it  not  be  a  reference  to  what  was  written  before,  like  Eph. 
iii.  3;  2  Cor.  vii.  2?  For  that  what  he  refers  to  in  both  these  passages  is  rather  more 
distant,  makes  no  difference  in  the  form  of  the  expression.  But  if  these  words  must  refer 
to  something  said  by  Paul  at  an  earlier  period,  yet  the  consequence  which  Riickert  be- 
lieves may  be  drawn  from  them,  does  not  follow ;  for  though  Paul  had  no  cause  to  be  dis- 
satisfied with  the  church  itself,  yet  after  what  he  had  experienced  at  Antioch,  added  to 
the  earlier  leaning  of  a  part  of  the  church  to  Judaism,  lie  might  have  considered  it  neces- 
sary to  charge  it  upon  them  most  impressively,  that  under  whatever  name,  however  re- 
vered, another  doctrine  might  be  announced  to  them,  than  that  which  he  had  preached,  it 
would  deserve  no  credit,  but  must  be  anti-Christian.  Although  GaL  v.  21  certainly 
refers  to  something  said  by  the  apostle  at  an  earlier  period,  yet  nothing  further  can  be 
concluded  from  it;  for  in  every  church  he  must  have  held  it  very  necessary  to  make  it  ap- 
parent that  men  would  only  grossly  natter  themselves  if  they  imagined  that  they  could  enter 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  a  complete  change  of  heart  and  conduct,  1  Thess.  iv.  6. 
Eph.  v.  5,  6.  The  words  in  Gal.  v.  2,  3  must  be  thus  understood,  "  As  I  said,  that  whoever 
allows  himself  to  be  circumcised,  renounces  his  fellowship  with  Christ,  so  I  testify  to  such  an 
one  again,  that  he  is  bound  to  fulfil  the  whole  law."  Evidently,  the  second  and  third  verses 
relate  to  one  another ;  the  thoughts  are  correlative.  If  Paul  intended  to  remind  the  Gala- 
tians  of  warnings  he  had  given  them  by  word  of  mouth,  why  did  he  not  insert  the  nd2.iv 
in  verse  2,  since  what  is  there  expressed  forms  the  leading  thought,  and  requires  the 
strongest  emphasis  to  be  laid  upon  it?  Nor  in  the  fact,  that,  without  any  preparation,  as 
in  his  other  epistles,  he  opens  this  with  such  vehement  rebuke,  can  I  with  Riickert  find  a 
proof  that  during  his  former  residence  among  these  churches  he  had  detected  the  Judaiz- 
ing  tendency  among  them,  and  was  forced  to  involve  them  all  in  blame,  in  order  to  bring 
them  back  to  the  right  path.  This  very  peculiarity  in  the  tone  with  which  the  epistle 
begins  may  be  easily  explained,  if  we  suppose  that  having  during  his  visit  perceived  no 
departure  from  the  doctrine  announced  to  them,  and  having  warned  them  beforehand  of 
the  artifices  of  the  Judaizers,  the  sudden  information  of  the  effect  produced  among  them 


208  PAUL   IX   GALATTA    AND   PHRYGIA. 

marked,  that  these  Judaizing  teachers  sought  to  gain  an  entrance  intc 
the  churches,  that  they  affected  great  zeal  for  their  spiritual  welfare — 
for  ,the  attainment  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  privileges 
and  benefits  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom ;  and  that  they  strove  to  imbue 
them  with  the  false  notion,  that  unless  they  allowed  themselves  to  be 
circumcised,  they  could  not  stand  on  a  level  with  the  Jewish  Christians. 
Still  he  had  cause  to  be  satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  they  main- 
tained their  Christian  freedom  against  these  persons,  Gal.  iv.  18.  And 
he  sought  only  to  confirm  them  still  more  in  this  Christian  mode  of 
thinking  and  acting,  while  he  endeavored  to  impress  on  their  hearts 
afresh  the  lesson  that,  independently  of  any  legal  observance,  salvation 
coufd  be  obtained  only  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  earnestly  put  them  on 
their  guard  against  everything  which  opposed  or  detracted  from  this 
truth.  This  was  interpreted  by  his  Judaizing  opponents,  who  were 
wont  to  misrepresent  all  his  actions  and  words,  and  in  every  way  to 
infuse  distrust  of  him,  as  if  he  had  grudged  the  Galatians  those  higher 
privileges  which  they  might  have  obtained  by  the  reception  of  Judaism, 
Gal.  iv.  16. 

Paul  now  chose  as  the  scene  of  his  labors  for  the  spread  of  the  gos- 
pel, the  centre  of  intercourse  and  traffic  for  a  large  part  of  Asia,  the  city 
of  Ephesus,  the  most  considerable  place  of  commerce  on  this  side  of  the 
Taurus.  But  here  also  was  a  central  point  for  mental  intercourse ;  so 
that  no  sooner  was  Christianity  introduced,  than  it  was  exposed  to  new 
conflicts  with  foreign  tendencies  of  the  religious  spirit,  which  either 
directly  counteracted  the  new  divine  element,  or  threatened  to  adulterate 
it.  Here  was  the  seat  of  heathen  magic,  which  originally  pi-oceeded 
from  the  mystic  worship  of  Artemis,*  and  here  also  the  Jewish  magic, 
connecting  itself  with  the  heathenish,  sought  to  find  entrance.  The  spirit 
of  the  times,  dissatisfied  with  all  the  existing  religions,  and  eager  after 
something  new,  was  favorable  to  all  such  religious  arts. 

After  Paul  had  preached  the  gospel  for  three  months  in  the  syna- 
gogue, he  was  induced,  by  the  unfriendly  disposition  manifested  by  a 
part  of  the  Jews,  to  turn  his  attention  to  the  Gentiles,  and  met  his. 

by  this  class  of  persons  would  now  more  painfully  surprise,  more  violently  affect  him ; 
and  the  whole  epistle  bears  the  marks  of  such  an  impresssion  on  his  mind.  Whichever 
among  the  conflicting  interpretations  of  the  words  in  ch.  iv.  18  may  be  taken,  this  much 
is  evident,  that  Paul  wished  that  they  would  act  during  his  absence  as  they  had  done  during 
his  presence.  And  this  he  surely  could  not  have  said,  if  already,  during  his  former  resi- 
dence, they  had  given  him  such  cause  for  dissatisfaction.  It  is  arbitrary  to  refer  this  only 
to  his  first  residence  among  them.  Had  he  during  that  residence  noticed  such  tilings 
among  them,  he  would  also  have  felt  that  "  doubt,"  unopla,  in  reference  to  them,  he  would 
have  perceived  the  necessity  of  "changing  his  voice,"  dXXd^ai  rtjv  <pc»vr)v,  and  have  al- 
ready made  use  of  this  new  mode  of  treatment,  v.  20. 

*  In  the  unintelligible,  enigmatical  words  on  her  statue,  higher  mysteries  were  sought 
and  a  special  magical  power  ascribed  to  them,  see  Clem.  Strom,  v.  568,  and  according  to 
these,  forms  of  incantation  were  constructed,  which  were  supposed  to  possess  great  effl' 
cacy,  the  so-called  yE(j>£cia  ypufifiara.     Plutarch.  Symposiac.  vii.  v. 


PAUL   AT   EPHESUS.  »09 

hearers  daily  in  a  school  belonging  to  one  of  their  number,  a  rhetorician, 
named  Tyrannus.  It  was  most  important  that  the  divine  power  which 
accompanied  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel  should  manifest  itself  in 
some  striking  manner,  in  opposition  to  the  magic  so  prevalent  here,— 
which  by  its  apparently  great  effects  deceived  and  captivated  many, — in 
order  to  rescue  men  from  these  arts  of  deception,  and  prepare  their 
hearts  to  receive  the  truth.  And  though  a  carnal  "  seeking  after  signs  " 
might  have  tempted  men  (like  the  Goes  Simon)  to  cleave  solely  to  the 
sensible  phenomena  in  which  the  power  of  the  divine  was  manifested, 
and  to  regard  Christianity  itself  as  a  new  and  higher  kind  of  ma<jic,  a 
most  powerful  counteraction  against  such  a  temptation  proceeded  from 
the  essential  nature  of  Christianity,  when  it  really  found  an  entrance  into 
the  heart.  One  remarkable  occurrence  which  took  place  at  this  time 
also  greatly  contributed  to  set  in  the  clearest  light  the  opposition  which 
Christianity  presented  to  all  such  arts  of  jugglery.  A  number  of  Jew- 
ish Goetaa  frequented  these  parts,  who  pretended  that  they  could  expel 
evil  spirits  from  possessed  persons  by  means  of  incantations,  fumigations, 
the  use  of  certain  herbs,  and  other  arts,  which  they  had  derived  from 
King  Solomon  ;*  and  these  people  could  at  times,  whether  by  great  dex- 
terity in  deceiving  the  senses,  or  by  availing  themselves  of  certain  pow- 
ers of  nature  unknown  to  others,  or  by  the  influence  of  an  excited  imag- 
ination,! produce  apparently  great  effects,  though  none  which  really 
promoted  the  welfare  of  mankind.^  When  these  Jewish  Goetae  beheld 
the  effects  which  Paul  produced  by  calling  on  the  name  of  Jesus,  they 
also  attempted  to  make  use  of  it  as  a  magical  formula  for  the  exorcism 
of  evil  spirits.  The  unhappy  consequences  of  this  attempt  (Acts  xix. 
15,)  made  a  powerful  impression  on  many,  who,  as  it  appeared,  had  cer- 
tainly been  moved  by  the  miraculous  operations  of  the  apostle,  so  far  as  to 
acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  author  of  divine  powers  in  men,  but  imagined 
that  these  powers  could  be  employed  in  the  services  of  their  sinful  prac- 
tices, and  in  connexion  with  their  vain  magical  arts.  But  terrified  by 
the  disaster  to  which  we  have  referred,  they  now  came  to  the  apostle, 
and  professed  repentance  for  their  sinful  course,  and  declared  their  reso- 
lution to  forsake  it.  Books  full  of  magical  formulae,  which  amounted  in 
value  to  more  than  "fifty  pieces  of  silver,"  were  brought  together  and 
publicly  burnt.  This  triumph  of  the  gospel  over  all  kinds  of  delusion 
and  arts  of  deception  was  often  repeated. 

Ephesus  was  a  noted  rendezvous  for  men  of  various  kinds  of  religious 
belief,  who  flocked  hither  from  various  parts  of  the  east,  and  thus  were 
brought  under  the  influence  of  Christianity  ;  amongst  others,  Paul  here 


*  See  Justin.  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  Jud.  f.  311,  ed.  Colon. 

f  See  an  example  in  Josephus,  how  by  such  operations  the  Roman  army  and  the  Em- 
peror Vespasian  were  filled  with  amazement. — Antiq.  viii.  2. 

%  The  cures  they  performed  were  sometimes  followed  by  still  greater  evils,  as  Christ 
himself  intimates  would  be  the  case;  Luke  xi.  23.     See  also  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  151,  241. 

14 


210  DISCIPLES    OF   JOHN. 

met  with  twelve  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist  ;*  the  individual  who  was 
commissioned  by  God  to  prepare  for  the  appearance  of  the  Redeemer 
among  his  nation  and  contemporaries  ;  but,  as  was  usual  with  the  pre- 
paratory manifestations  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  different  effects  were 
produced  according  to  the  different  susceptibility  of  his  hearers.  There 
were  those  of  his  disciples  who,  following  his  directions,  attained  to  a 
living  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  some  of  whom  became  apostles  ;  others 
only  attained  a  very  defective  knowledge  of  the  person  and  doctrine  of 
Christ ;  others  again,  not  imbibing  the  spirit  of  their  master,  held  fast 
their  former  prejudices,  and  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  towards  Chris- 
tianity ;  probably  the  first  germ  of  such  an  opposition  appeared  at  this 
time  and  from  it  was  formed  the  sect  of  the  disciples  of  John,  which 
continued  to  exist  in  a  later  age.  Those  disciples  of  John  whom  Paul 
met  at  Ephesus,  belonged  to  the  second  of  these  classes.  Whether  they 
had  become  the  disciples  of  John  himself  in  Palestine  and  received  bap- 
tism from  him,  or  Avhether  they  had  been  won  over  to  his  doctrine  by 
means  of  his  disciples  in  other  parts,  (which  would  serve  to  prove  that 

*  The  appearance  of  these  disciples  of  John  at  Ephesus  bears  the  impress  of  historical 
troth,  whether  we  regard  the  account  itself,  or  compare  it  with  what  we  know  from  other 
sources  to  have  been  the  position  of  John  and  his  disciples  in  reference  to  the  various 
tendencies  of  the  age.  The  obscurity  that  attaches  to  the  narrative  of  these  disciples 
cannot  be  taken  as  a  mark  of  the  unhistorical ;  it  belongs  rather  to  the  peculiarities  of 
that  uncertain  transitional  stage  which  was  the  result  of  a  mixture  of  impressions  respect- 
ing John  the  Baptist  with  the  scattered  accounts  received  of  Christ.  No  man  can  form 
an  image  with  clear  and  distinct  outlines,  out  of  misty,  indistinct  phenomena  Tba 
deficiency  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  historian,  but  is  owing  to  the  peculiar  character  of 
historical  development  at  such  a  period.  Instead  of  our  being  able  to  detect  an  imagina- 
tive subjective  element,  an  artistic  attempt  at  historical  composition,  in  this  representation, 
we  find,  on  the  contrary,  nothing  more  than  the  raw  material  of  facts,  and  miss  entirely 
the  historic  art  of  genetic  pragmatism.  But  criticism  after  the  newest  fashion  professes  to 
have  discovered  a  trickery  here  which  will  account  for  everything.  The  historical  basis 
is  only  this,  that  Apollos,  who  had  been  converted  to  Christianity  from  the  school  of  the 
Alexandrine  Jews,  in  consequence  of  his  Alexandrian  education  had  already  acquired 
a  more  liberal  conception  of  Christianity.  He  had  occupied  a  solitary,  isolated  position 
between  the  Paulinians  and  the  Judaizers,  until  by  means  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  he  had 
become  better  acquainted  with  the  Paulinian  doctrine,  and  had  been  induced  to  connect 
himself  with  the  Paulinian  party.  Such  was  the  origin  of  the  fiction  which  made  Apollos 
one  of  John's  disciples,  who  was  first  instructed  in  Christianity  by  Aquila  and  Priscilla. 
This  would  not  have  happened,  if  the  author  of  the  Acts  had  not  needed  the  disciples  of 
John  for  his  machinery.  For  surely  Paul,  as  well  as  Peter,  should  acquire  distinction 
from  the  magical  effect  of  the  imposition  of  his  hands  on  persons  of  different  religious 
convictions,  who,  on  passing  over  to  Christianity  should  thus  be  made  partakers  of  pre- 
tended higher  spiritual  gifts.  This  had  already  taken  place  among  the  Jews,  Samari- 
tans, and  Gentiles ;  only  the  disciples  of  John  were  left,  and  these  therefore  must  also 
Eerve  as  a  foil,  in  order  that  the  same  fabrication  which  at  an  earlier  period  had  pro- 
cured such  honor  for  Peter  in  the  family  of  Cornelius,  might  now  among  John's  disciples, 
in  a  corresponding  manner  glorify  Paul,  who  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  inferior  to  his 
fellow-apostle.  Whoever  can  satisfy  himself  with  this  unnatural  tissue  of  plan-making  so 
wholly  opposed  to  the  impression  which  such  a  book  must  make  upon  every  unperverted 
mind — is  welcome  to  do  so ! 


PAUL   AT   EPHESUS.  211 

John's  disciples  aimed  at  forming  a  separate  community  which  neces- 
sarily would  soon  assume  a  jealous  and  hostile  position  toward  Chris- 
tianity on  its  first  rapid  spread)  at  all  events,  they  had  accepted  the  little 
they  had  heard  of  the  person  and  doctrine  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  to 
whom  John  pointed  his  followers,  and  considered  themselves  justified  in 
professing  to  be  Christians*  like  others.  Paul  believed  that  he  should 
find  them  such  ;  but,  on  further  conversation  with  them,  it  appeared  that 
they  understood  nothing  of  the  power  of  the  glorified  Saviour,  and  of 
the  communication  of  divine  life  through  him, — that  they  knew  nothing 
of  a  Holy  Spirit.  Paul  then  imparted  to  them  more  accurate  instruction 
on  the  relation  between  the  ministry  of  John  and  that  of  Christ,  between 
the  baptism  of  John  and  the  baptism  which  would  initiate  them  into  com- 
munion with  Christ,  and  into  a  participation  of  the  divine  life  that  pro- 
ceeded from  him.  After  that,  he  baptized  them  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
with  the  usual  consecration  by  the  sign  of  the  laying-on  of  hands  and  the 
accompanying  prayer;  and  their  reception  into  Christian  fellowship  was 
sealed  by  the  usual  manifestations  of  Christian  inspiration.! 

Paul's  residence  at  Ephesus  was  not  only  of  considerable  importance 
for  the  spread  of  Christianity  throughout  Asia  Minor,  for  which  object 
he  incessantly  labored  either  by  undertaking  journeys  himself,  or  by 
means  of  disciples  whom  he  sent  out  as  missionaries;  but  it  was  also  a 
great  advantage  for  the  churches  that  were  already  formed  in  this  region, 
as  from  this  central  point  of  intercourse  he  could  most  easily  receive  in- 

*  The  name  fiadijra),  Acts  xix.  1,  without  any  other  designation,  can  certainly  be 
understood  only  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus ;  and  the  manner  in  which  Paul  addressed  them 
implies  that  they  were  considered  Christians. 

f  Whoever  is  capable  of  transporting  himself  into  the  apostolic  age,  will  assuredly 
not  fail  to  perceive  the  historical  impress  in  this  narrative,  and  will  not  attempt  with  Baur 
to  regard  the  " prophesving"  and  "speaking  with  tongues  "  as  merely  mythical  designa- 
tions for  the  impartation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  Christianity.  The  phenomena  of  the 
higher  life  are  wont  to  wear  peculiar  marks  in  different  ages.  Thus  the  phenomena  of 
whose  qualities  we  have  already  spoken  belong  to  the  peculiar  marks  of  the  inspiration 
proceeding  from  the  new  divine  life  when  it  took  possession  of  men's  souls.  There  are 
not  wanting  analogies  in  history  of  general  religious  awakenings  or  "revivals,"  though 
we  need  not,  therefore,  overlook  the  difference  in  reference  to  the  greater  or  less  purity 
in  the  development  of  the  divine  life.  Nor  is  there  any  occasion  whatever  for  attributing 
a  magical  effect  to  baptism  or  the  laying  on  of  hands ;  but  we  must  only  regard  these 
as  individual  points  in  the  connexion  of  the  whole,  and  related  to  the  entire  preceding 
spiritual  operation  on  the  minds  of  the  disciples  of  John.  Have  we  not  then,  here, 
perfectly  definite  historical  marks  which  exclude  everything  mythical?  Does  not  the 
First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  refer  to  such  phenomena  which  everywhere 
accompanied  the  development  of  the  Christian  life  ?  Does  not  Paul  appeal  to  operations 
of  the  Pneuma  among  the  Galatian  churches  (Gal.  iii.  2,  5.)  which  distinguished  the 
new  creation  of  faith  from  the  old  legal  state,  and  does  he  not  recount,  moreover,  the 
"miracles,"  6vva.fj.eic,  which  were  efficacious  among  the  Galatians?  We  well  know, 
indeed,  that  the  communication  of  the  Spirit  contains  more  than  this  in  itself,  but  still 
these  marks  are  not  excluded.  Those  phenomena,  so  far  from  belonging  to  the  depart- 
ment of  the  mythical,  rather  necessarily  belong  to  the  historical  image  of  this  memorable 


212  PAUL   AT  EPHESUS. 

telligence  from  all  quarters,  and,  by  means  of  letters  or  messengers,  could 
attend  to  their  religious  and  moral  condition,  as  the  necessities  of  the 
churches  might  require.  His  anxiety  for  these  his  spiritual  children 
always  accompanied  him ;  he  often  reminded  them  that  he  remembered 
them  daily  in  his  prayers  with  thanksgiving  and  intercession  ;  thus  he 
assured  the  Corinthians,  in  the  overflowing  of  his  love,  that  he  bore 
them  continually  in  his  heart ;  and  vividly  depicted  his  daily  care 
for  all  the  churches  he  had  founded  by  his  touching  interrogations, 
"  Who  is  weak  in  faith  and  I  am  not  weak  ?  Who  meets  with  a 
stumbling-block  and  I  am  not  disturbed  even  more  than  himself?"  2 
Coi\  xi.  29. 

Cases  of  the  latter  kind  must  often  have  excited  the  grief  of  the  apos- 
tle ;  for  as  the  Christian  faith  gradually  gained  the  ascendency  and  af- 
fected the  general  tone  of  thinking  in  society,  new  views  of  life  in  gen- 
eral, and  a  new  mode  of  feeling,  were  formed  in  the  Gentile  world  ;  and 
in  opposition  to  the  immoral  licentiousness  of  heathenism,  which  men 
were  led  to  renounce  by  the  new  principles  of  the  Christian  life,  an 
anxiously  legal  and  Jewish  mode  of  thinking,  which  burdened  the  con- 
duct with  numberless  restraints,  was  likely  to  find  entrance  among  them, 
and  must  have  disturbed  the  minds  of  many  who  had  not  attained 
settled  Christian  convictions. 

Probably  it  was  soon  after  his  arrival  at  Ephesus  that  Paul  received 
the  information  respecting  the  state  of  the  Galatian  churches  which 
awakened  his  fears.  During  his  last  residence  among  them,  he  had  per- 
ceived the  machinations  of  a  Judaizing  party,  which  were  likely  to  injure 
the  purity  of  the  Christian  faith  and  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  spirit. 
He  was  aware  of  the  danger  which  threatened  from  this  quarter,  and 
had  taken  measures  to  counteract  it ;  he  was  not  succeseful,  however, 
in  averting  the  approaching  storm,  as  he  now  experienced  to  his  great 
sorrow. 

The  adversaries  whom  he  had  here  to  contend  with  were  unwilling 
to  acknowledge  his  apostolic  authority,  because  he  had  not  been  in- 
structed and  called  to  the  apostleship  immediately  by  Christ  himself; 
they  maintained  that  all  preaching  of  the  gospel  must  rest  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  apostles  who  were  appointed  by  Christ  himself;  they  en- 
deavored to  detect  a  contrariety  between  the  doctrine  of  Paul  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  apostles,  who  had  allowed  the  observance  of  the  law  in 
their  churches,  and  in  consequence  accused  him  of  a  departure  from  the. 
pure  doctrine  of  Christ.  They  could  also  appeal  to  the  fact,  that  he  re- 
presented himself  when  among  the  Jews  as  a  Jew  observing  the 
law,  and  therefore,  when  he  taught  otherwise  among  the  Gentiles,  he 
could  only  do  it  in  order  to  flatter  them,  to  the  injury  of  their  true  in- 
terest. 

Although  the  anti-Pauline  tendency  in  the  Galatian  churches  was  con- 
nected with  that  party  which  had  its  principal  seat  in  Palestine,  yet  per- 


FAUL   AT    EPHESUS.  213 

sous  who  proceeded  from  the  midst  of  the  Gentile  Christians,*  and  had 
submitted  to  circumcision,  acted  here  principally  as  the  organs  of  this 
party,  and  exercised  the  greatest  influence.  To  such  the  words  of  Paul 
in  Gal.  vi.  13  must  relate ;  that  even  those  who  were  circumcised,  or 
wished  to  be  so,  did  not  themselves  observe  the  law.  These  must  have 
been  originally  Gentiles,  and,  on  this  supposition,  it  is  less  difficult  to  un- 
derstand, how  he  could  say  of  them  that  they  themselves  did  not  observe 
the  law  ;  for  to  persons  who  had  grown  up. in  heathenism,  it  could  not 
be  so  easy  a  matter  to  practise  the  complete  round  of  Jewish  observ- 
ances. But,  as  is  most  generally  the  case  with  proselytes,  they  were 
peculiarly  zealous  for  the  party  to  which,  notwithstanding  their  Gre- 
cian descent,  they  had  devoted  themselves,  and  their  influence  with 
their  countrymen  was  far  more  dangerous  than  that  of  the  Jewish  false 
teachers. 

Such  a  mixture  of  Judaism  and  Christianity  threatened  to  destroy 
the  whole  substance  of  Christianity,  and  to  substitute  a  Jewish  ceremo- 
nial service  in  the  place  of  a  genuine  Christian  conversion  proceeding 
from  a  living  faith ;  and  the  danger  which  thus  threatened  the  divine 
work  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  apostles.  In  order  to  give  the 
Galatian  Christians  an  evidence  of  his  love,  of  which  the  Judaizers 
wished  to  excite  a  mistrust,  and  to  make  it  evident  what  importance  he 
attached  to  the  subject,  he  undertook  to  write  an  epistle  to  them  with 
his  oic?i  hand,  contrary  to  his  usual  custom,  and  a  difficult  task  for  one 


*  This  entirely  depends  upon  whether  we  adopt  the  lectio  recepta  in  Gal.  vi.  13,  Trepire/i- 
vo/zevm,  "who  are  haviDg  themselves  circumcised,"  or  the  reading  of  the  codex  Vaticanus 
approved  by  Lachmann  [and  Teschendorf],  rcepiTeT/in/itvoi,  "  who  have  had  themselves 
circumcised."  I  cannot  help  considering  the  first  (which  has  the  greatest  number  of 
original  authorities  in  its  favor)  as  the  correct  reading,  partly  also  on  this  account,  that  we 
cannot  imagine  any  reason  why  any  one  should  be  induced  to  explain  the  latter,  a  word 
requiring  no  explanation,  by  the  former,  a  more  difficult  one,  and  on  the  contrary,  it  may 
be  easily  accounted  for,  how  a  person  might  think  of  explaining  the  former  by  the  latter. 
If  the  lectio  recepta  be  the  correct  one,  the  expression  cannot  refer  to  circumcised  Jews, 
but  only  to  Gentiles  who  suffered  themselves  to  be  circumcised.  That  the  most  influen- 
tial seducers  of  the  Galatian  churches,  were  such,  appears  to  me  to  be  intimated  also  by 
the  word  "  cut  off,"  dnoKo-ipovrai,  v.  12.  Hence  may  be  better  explained  the  impassioned 
terms,  proceeding  from  a  truly  holy  zeal,  with  which  Paul  speaks  against  these  persons. 
If  circumcision  be  not  enough  for  them,  let  them  have  excision  also ;  if,  falling  away  from 
the  religion  of  the  spirit,  they  seek  their  salvation  in  these  outward,  worthless  things  and 
would  make  themselves  dependent  upon  them.'  The  pathos  with  which  he  here  speaks, 
testifies  his  zeal  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  and  for  the  elevated  spiritual  character  of  Chris- 
tianity, in  opposition  to  all  ceremonial  services  by  which  Christianity  and  human  nature 
would  be  degraded  And  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  apology  made  by  Jerome,  although 
what  he  says  is  correct,  tl  at  we  must  look  on  the  apostle  as  a  man  still  subject  to  human 
passions ;  "  Nee  mirum  esse,  si  Apostolus,  ut  homo  et  adhuc  vasculo  clausus  infirmo  semel 
merit  hoc  loquutus,  in  quod  frequenter  sanctos  viros  cadere  perspicimus."  (Nor  is  it  to  be 
wondered  at,  if  the  apostle  spoke  this  as  a  man,  as  one  still  shut  up  in  a  weak  vessel ;  a 
fault  into  which  we  frequently  see  holy  men  falL) 


214  THE    EPISTLE   TO    THE    GALATIANS. 

who,  amidst  his  manifold  engagements,  had  little  practice  in  writing 
Greek.* 

He  begins  his  Epistle  with  declaring  that  his  apostolic  call  was  given 
to  him,  as  to  the  other  apostles,  immediately  by  Christ  himself;  he  as- 
sures the  Galatian  Christians  in  a  most  solemn  manner  that  there  could 
be  no  other  gospel  than  that  which  he  had  announced  to  them,  and  that 
it  was  far  from  his  thoughts  to  be  influenced  by  the  desire  of  pleasing  men 
in  his  mode  of  publishing  the  gospel  ;f  though  when  enthralled  in  Phari- 
saism, he  was  actuated  only  by  a  regard  to  human  authority,  yet  since 
he  had  devoted  himself  to  the  service  of  Christ,  he  had  renounced  all 
such  considerations,  and  taught  and  acted  in  obedience  to  the  divine  call, 
as  responsible  to  God  alone. J  He  proved  to  them  by  a  lucid  statement 
of  facts,  that  from  the  first  he  had  published  the  gospel  in  consequence 
of  immediate  divine  illumination,  and  independently  of  all  human  author- 
ity; and  that  the  other  apostles  had  acknowledged  his  independent  apos- 
tolic character.  With  the  firmest  conviction  that  salvation  and  the  ful- 
ness of  the  divine  life  were  to  be  found  only  by  faith  in  the  Crucified,  he 
turns  to  the  Galatian  Christians  with  the  exclamation,  "  Ye  fools,  who 
hath  so  bewitched  you  !   to  forget  Jesus  the  Crucified,  whom  we  have 

*  Although  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Greek  ttt)Xikoic,  Gal.  vi.  11,  wouli  lead  us  to 
understand  it  as  referring  to  the  large  unshapely  letters  of  an  unpractised  writer,  yet  I  could 
never  find  in  the  words  so  understood,  an  expression  corresponding  to  the  earnestness  of 
the  apostle,  and  the  tone  of  the  whole  epistle.  "Why  should  he  not  have  expressed,  in  a 
more  natural  manner,  how  toilsome  he  had  found  the  task  of  merely  writing  in  this  lan- 
guage ?  See  Schott's  Commentary.  We  are  inclined  to  believe,  that  he  uses  the  word  in 
the  less  proper  sense  for  -rroaotc,  as  in  the  later  Latin  authors  we  often  find  quanti  for  quot. 
And  we  may  refer  it  most  naturally  to  the  whole  epistle  as  written  with  his  own  hand. 
It  will  also  agree  with  the  use  of  the  word  ypufifiaTa,  when  applied  to  an  epistle.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  use  of  the  dative  in  this  case  is  unusual,  and  not  agreeable  to  the 
Pauline  form  of  expression,  and  etuotoH}  is  the  word  commonly  used  by  Paul  for  an  epis- 
tle. The  reason  of  his  writing  the  whole  epistle  with  his  own  hand,  was  certainly  not  to 
guard  against  a  falsification  of  it,  or  the  forgery  of  another  in  his  name  ;  for  his  opponents, 
in  this  instance,  were  under  no  temptation  to  do  this,  since  they  were  not  desirous  of  as- 
cribing to  him  any  other  doctrine  than  that  he  taught  but  were  at  issue  with  him  respect- 
ing the  truth  of  that  doctrine,  and  actually  impugned  his  apostolic  authority.  The  con- 
nexion of  the  passage  plainly  shows  us  for  what  purpose  he  so  expressly  stated  that  he 
had  written  the  whole  with  his  own  hand,  namely,  to  testify  that  his  love  for  them  in- 
duced him  to  undergo  any  labor  on  their  account,  in  contrast  with  the  false  teachers  whom 
he  described  in  the  following  verses  as  seeking  their  own  glory. 

f  The  Judaizers  accused  him  of  this  in  reference  to  the  Gentiies. 

J  Schrader  misunderstands  Gal.  i.  10,  when  he  applies  it  only  to  Jews  and  Judaizing 
Christians.  If  we  apply  the  assertion  here  made  in  the  most  general  terms,  according  to 
the  sense  intended  by  Paul,  we  shall  understand  it  of  Gentiles  and  Gentile  Christians. 
Paul  wished  to  defend  himself  against  the  accusation  of  the  Jews,  that  he  wilfully  falsified 
the  doctrine  of  Christ,  in  order  to  make  it  acceptable  to  the  heathen.  The  "now,"  dpri 
marks  the  opposition  of  his  conduct  as  the  "servant  of  Christ,"  to  his  former  Pharisaism, 
of  which  he  afterwards  speaks  more  at  large.  This  view  of  the  passage  does  away  with 
the  inference  which  Schrader  attempts  to  draw  from  it,  that  Paul  wrote  this  epistle  during 
the  time  of  his  imprisonment  at  Rome. 


PAUL    AT    EPIIESUS.  215 

set  forth  before  your  eyes  as  the  only  ground  of  our  salvation,  and  to 
seek  in  outward  things,  in  the  works  of  the  law,  that  salvation  for  which 
ye  must  be  indebted  to  him  alone  !  Are  ye  so  void  of  understanding, 
that  after  ye  have  begun  your  Christianity  in  the  Spirit,  in  the  divine  life 
which  proceeds  from  faith,  ye  can  seek  after  something  higher  still  (the 
perfecting  of  your  Christianity,)  in  the  low,  the  sensuous,  and  the 
earthly,  in  that  which  can  have  no  elevating  influence  on  the  inner  life 
of  the  spirit,  in  the  observance  of  outward  ceremonies  !"  He  appeals  to 
the  evidence  of  their  own  experience,  that  though  from  the  first  the  gos- 
pel had  been  published  to  them  independently  of  the  law,  yet  by  virtue 
of  faith  in  the  Redeemer  alone,  the  divine  power  of  the  gospud  had  re- 
vealed itself  among  them  by  manifold  operations,  among  which  he 
reckoned  the  miracles  to  which  lie  alludes  in  chap.  iii.  5. 

As  his  opponents  supported  themselves  on  the  authority  of  the  Old 
Testament,  Paul  shows,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  final  aim  of  its  con- 
tents was  to  prepare  for  the  appearance  of  the  Redeemer,  by  whom  the 
wall  of  separation  that  had  hitherto  existed  among  men  was  to  be  taken 
away,  and  all  men  by  virtue  of  faith  in  him  were  to  receive  a  divine  life ; 
that  the  promises  given  to  Abraham  were  annexed  to  the  condition  of 
faith,  and  would  be  fulfilled  in  all  who  .were  followers  of  Abraham  in 
faith  as  his  genuine  spiritual  children  ;  that  the  manifestation  of  the  law 
formed  only  a  preparatory  intervening  period  between  the  giving  of  the 
promise  and  its  fulfillment  by  the  appearance  of  the  Redeemer.  He 
placed  Judaism  and  Heathenism — though,  in  other  respects,  he  viewed 
these  religions  as  essentially  different — in  one  class  in  relation  to  Chris- 
tianity ;  the  state  of  pupillage  in  religion,  compared  with  the  state  of 
maturity  which  the  children  of  God  attained  for  the  full  enjoyment  of 
their  rights  ;  the  dependence  of  religion  on  outward,  sensible  things,  an 
outward  cultus,  consisting  in  various  ceremonies,  compared  with  a 
religion  of  freedom  (which  proceeded  from  faith)  of  the  spirit,  and  of 
the  inward  life.* 

As  his  opponents  charged  him  with  a  want  of  uprightness,  and  with 
releasing  the  Gentiles  from  the  burdensome  observance  of  the  law,  merely 
from  a  wish  to  ingratiate  himself  with  them,  he  could  adopt  no  more 
suitable  method  of  vindicating  himself,  and  of  infusing  confidence  into 
the  Galatian  Christians,  than  by  proposing  the  example  of  his  own  life 
for  imitation.  He  lived  among  the  Gentiles  as  a  Gentile,  without  sub- 
mitting to  the  restrictions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  certainly  he  would 
not  have  done  if  he  had  believed  that  it  was  impossible  to  attain  the  full 
possession  of  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  without  the  obser- 
vance of  the  law.     Hence  he  made  this  demand  on  the  Galatians  (iv.  12,)f 

*  Compare  with  what  has  been  before  said,  p.  157,  ff. 

f  I  agree  with  Usteri  in  the  explanation  of  these  words.  That  the  Galatians  had  at 
that  time  adopted  the  practice  of  Jewish  ceremonies,  and  therefore  that  Paul  could  not  in 
Uns  respect  have  said,  "I  am  become  like  you," — can  form  no  valid  objection  to  this  inter- 
pretation; for  the  Galatian  Christians,  all  of  whom  certainly  had  not  devoted  themselves 


216  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

"Become  as  I  am  (in  reference  to  the  non-observance  of  the  law),  for  1 
am  become  as  you  are,  like  you  as  Gentiles  in  the  non-observance  of  the 
law,  although  a  native  Jew."  Now,  if  his  method  of  becoming  to  the 
Jews  a  Jew,  by  observing  the  ceremonies  of  the  law  when  amongst 
them  in  Palestine,  had  been  at  all  inconsistent  with  what  he  here  said  of 
himself,  he  would  not  have  appealed  with  such  confidence  to  his  own 
example.  But,  according  to  his  own  principles,  such  a  contradiction 
could  not  exist;  for,  if  he  did  not  constantly  observe  the  ceremonies  of 
the  law,  but  only  under  certain  relations  and  circumstances,  this  suffi- 
ciently showed  that  he  no  longer  ascribed  to  them  an  objective  impor- 
tance, that  according  to  his  conviction  they  could  contribute  nothing  to 
the  justification  and  sanctification  of  men ;  and  as  this  was  his  principle 
in  reference  to  all  outward,  and  in  themselves  indifferent  things,  he  only 
submitted  to  them  for  the  benefit  of  others,  according  to  the  dictates  of 
wisdom  and  love. 

Paul  called  upon  the  Galatians  to  stand  firm  in  the  liberty  gained  for 
them  by  Christ,  and  not  to  bring  themselves  again  under  the  yoke  of 
bondage.  He  assured  them,  that  if  they  were  circumcised,  Christ  would 
profit  them  nothing ;  that  every  man  who  submitted  to  circumcision  was 
bound  to  observe  the  whole  law ;  that  since  they  sought  to  be  justified 
by  the  law,  they  had  renounced  their  connexion  with  Christ,  they  were 
fallen  from  the  possession  of  grace.  For  he  means  not  outward  circum- 
cision considered  in  itself,  but  in  its  connexion  with  the  religious  princi- 
ple involved  in  it,  as  far  as  the  Gentile  who  submitted  to  circumcision 
did  so  in  the  conviction  that  by  it,  and  therefore  by  the  law  (to  whose 
observance  a  man  was  bound  by  circumcision)  justification  was  to  be 
obtained.  And  this  conviction  stood  in  direct  opposition  to  that  dispo- 
sition which  depended  on  the  Saviour  alone  for  salvation. 

The  apostle,  in  contrasting  his  true, upright  love  to  the  Galatian  Chris- 
tians, with  the  pretended  zeal  of  the  Judaizers  for  their  salvation,  said 
to  them,  "  They  have  a  zeal  on  your  account,  but  not  in  the  right  way ; 
they  wish  to  exclude  you  from  the  kingdom  of  God  that  you  may  be 
zealous  about  them,  that  is,  they  wish  to  persuade  you,  that  you  cannot 
as  uncircumcised  Gentiles  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  order  that  you 
may  emulate  them,  that  you  may  be  circumcised  as  they  are,  as  if  thus 
only  you  can  become  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Those  who 
are  disposed  to  boast  of  their  outward  preeminence  (of  outward  Juda- 
ism), compel  you  to  be  circumcised  only  that  they  may  not  be  persecuted 
with  the  cross  of  Christ,  (that  is,  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ  the  Cruci- 
fied, as  the  only  ground  of  salvation),  that  they  may  not  be  obliged  to 
owe  their  salvation  to  Him  alone,  and  to  renounce  all  their  merits,  all  in 
which  they  think  themselves  distinguished  above  others.*     They  wish 

to  the  observance  of  the  law,  still  belonged  to  the  stock  of  the  Gentiles,  and  with  this 
view,  tbe  term  v/telr  is  used.  In  such  epigrammatic  expressions,  single  terms  are  not  in 
general  to  be  pressed  too  strongly. 

*  I  here  adopt  an  interpretation  of  the  words  in  Gal.  vi.  12,  different  from  that  which 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS.  217 

you  to  be  circumc.sed  only  that  they  may  glory  in  your  flesh,  that  is,  in 
the  change  which  the/  have  outwardly  effected  in  yon,  by  bringing  you 
over  altogether  to  tha  Jewish  Christian  party."  The  apostle,  lastly,  ad- 
jured the  Galatians  that  they  would  not  give  him  any  further  trouble, 


from  ancient  times  has  been  received  by  most  expositors,  and  which,  without  being  closely 
examined,  lias  been  mentioned  by  Usteri  only  with  unqualified  disapprobation.  I  will, 
therefore,  state  a  few  things  in  its  favor.  The  commos  explanation  of  the  passage  is, 
"  These  persons  compel  you  to  be  circumcised,  only  because  they  are  not  willing  to  be 
persecuted  for  the  cross  of  Christ ;  that  is,  in  order  to  avoid  the  persecutions  which  the 
publication  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  through  faith  alone,  in  Jesus  the  Crucified,  will 
bring  upon  them  from  the  Jews."  The  use  of  the  dative  certainly  suits  this  interpretation, 
although  I  believe  that  Paul,  if  he  had  wished  to  give  utterance  to  so  simple  a  thought, 
would  have  expressed  himself  more  plainly.  Gal.  v.  11,  might  favor  this  interpretation, 
where  Paul  says  of  himself,  that  if  he  still  preached  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  then  the 
offence  which  the  Jews  took  at  Christianity,  on  account  of  the  doctrine  that  a  man  by 
faith  in  the  Crucified  might  become  an  heir  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  without  the  obser- 
vance of  the  law,  would  at  once  be  taken  away;  and  no  reason  would  be  left  for  per- 
secuting him  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel.  But  in  order  to  avoid  such  persecutions  on  the 
part  of  the  Jews,  these  persons  had  need  only  to  observe  the  law  strictly  themselves,  and 
to  beware  of  publishing  the  doctrine,  that  a  man  could  be  justified  without  the  works  ol 
the  law ;  by  no  means  would  they  have  been  obliged  to  press  circumcision  so  urgently  on 
the  Gentiles  already  converted,  nor  does  Paul  ever  ascribe  to  his  Judaizing  opponents  the 
design  of  avoiding  the  persecution  that  threatened  them  by  such  conduct.  And  if,  as  has 
been  indicated,  the  most  influential  opponents  of  Paul  in  the  Galatian  churches  were  of 
Gentile  descent,  this  interpretation  would  still  less  hold  good,  for  Gentiles  would  have 
brought  persecutions  on  themselves  sooner  by  the  observance  of  Jewish  ceremonies,  than 
by  the  observance  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  was  not  conspicuous  in  outward  rites. 
And  how  would  this  interpretation  suit  the  connexion?  Paul  says  (Gal.  vi.  12),  "Those 
who  wish  to  have  some  preeminence  in  outward  things  (some  outward  distinction  before 
others)  oblige  you  to  be  circumcised."  After  this,  we  expect  something  related  to  it,  in 
the  clause  beginning  with  "  lest,"  "iva  fir/,  something  that  may  serve  as  an  exegesis,  or  fix 
the  meaning.  But  according  to  this  interpretation,  something  quite  foreign  would  follow 
— that  thereby  they  wish  to  avoid  persecution.  If  this  thought  followed,  Paul  would 
have  said  at  first — "  Those  who  long  after  ease  for  the  flesh,  or  who  are  afraid  to  bear  the 
cross  of  Christ  (or  something  of  the  kind),  force  circumcision  upon  you,"  etc.  Yerse  14 
also  shows,  that  all  the  emphasis  is  laid  on  glorying  alone  in  the  cross  of  Christ,  which  ia 
opposed  to  setting  a  high  value  on  any  other  glorying.  The  thought  arising  from  that 
interpretation  appears  quite  foreign  to  the  context,  both  before  and  after.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  interpretation  I  have  adopted  suits  it  entirely.  That  "making  a  fair  show  ia 
the  flesh,"  evTrpnouTrelv  ev  oaptii,  that  "glorying  according  to  the  flesh,"  Kavxyna  nard. 
oapnu,  is  taken  away,  if  men  can  glory  only  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  Hence  they  consider 
the  cross  of  Christ,  that  is,  the  doctrine  of  faith  in  the  Crucified,  the  only  sufficient  means 
of  salvation,  as  something  wearing  a  hostile  aspect  towards  them,  by  which  they  are  per- 
secuted, since  it  obliges  them  to  renounce  their  fancied  superiority.  With  the  positive 
clause  in  v.  12,  "  tho3e  who  wish  to  have  some  preeminence  according  to  the  flesh,"  the 
negative  clause,  therefore,  agrees  well,  "  that  they  may  not  be  persecuted  with  or  by  the 
cross  of  Christ,"  (the  cross  of  Christ  as  something  subjective  to  them,  by  which  they  are 
persecuted).  The  mention  of  the  cross  first,  according  to  the  best  accredited  reading 
adopted  by  Lachmaun.also  suits  this  view  of  the  passage.  According  to  the  other  view, 
all  the  emphasis  is  to  be  placed  on  the  not  being  persecuted.  On  the  whole,,  the  leading 
idea  of  the  whole  passage  appears  to  be,  glorying  in  the  cross  of  Christ,  in  opposition  to 
glorying  in  the  flesh. 


218  STATE    OF   THE   CHURCH    AT    CORINTH. 

since  he  bore  in  his  body  the  mark  of  the  sufferings  he  had  endured  for 
the  cause  of  Christ.* 

.During  his  residence  at  Ephesus,  the  affairs  of  the  Corinthian  church 
demanded  his  special  attention.  The  history  of  this  community  furnishes 
us  an  example  of  developments  and. agitations  such  as  have  been  often 
repeated  in  later  periods  of  the  church  on  a  larger  scale.  A  variety  of 
influences  operated  on  this  church,  and  it  is  impossible  to  refer  every- 
thing to  one  common  ground  of  explanation,  such  as  the  relation  \  be- 
tween the  different  parties ;  although  one  common  cause,  which  will 
explain  many  of  these  influences,  may  be  found  in  the  particular  situa- 
tion of  the  Christian  church,  which  the  new  Christian  spirit,  opposed  as 
it  was  by  former  habits  of  life,  and  the  general  state  of  society,  had  but 
partially  penetrated.  Many  of  the  easily  excited  and  mobile  Greeks 
had  been  carried  away  by  the  powerful  impression  of  Paul's  ministry 
made  at  Corinth,  and  at  first  showed  great  zeal  for  Christianity  ;  but  the 
principles  of  Christianity  had  taken  no  deep  root  in  their  unsettled  dispo- 
sitions. In  a  city  like  Corinth,  where  so  great  a  corruption  of  morals 
prevailed,  and  so  many  incentives  to  the  indulgence  of  the  passions  were 
presented  on  every  side,  such  a  superficial  conversion  was  exposed  to 
the  greatest  danger.  In  addition  to  this,  after  Paul  had  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  church,  other  preachers  followed  him,  who  published  the 
gospel  partly  in  another  form,  and  partly  on  other  principles,  and  who, 
since  their  various  natural  peculiarities  were  not  properly  subordinated 
to  the  essential  principles  of  the  gospel,  gave  occasion  to  many  divisions 
among  the  Greeks,  a  people  J  naturally  inclined  to  parties  and  party  dis- 
putes^    There  were  at  first  persons  of  the  same  spirit  as  those  false 


*  If  we  only  consider  what  is  narrated  in  the  Acts  of  his  sufferings  hitherto,  though 
it  is  evident  from  a  comparison  with  2  Cor.  xi.  that  all  is  not  mentioned,  we  shall  be  as 
little  disposed  as  by  what  the  apostle  says  of  the  persecutions  of  the  Jews,  to  apply  these 
words  (with  Schrader)  to  his  imprisonment  at  Rome.  "What  Paul  says  in  chap.  ii.  10, 
respecting  the  fulfilment  of  obligations  to  the  poor  at  Jerusalem,  might  favor  the  later 
composition  of  this  epistle,  but  proves  nothing;  for  the  words  by  no  means  lead  us  to 
think  of  that  last  large  collection,  of  which  he  undertook  to  be  the  bearer  to  Jerusalem. 
He  might  very  often  have  sent  separate  contributions  from  the  churches  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians to  Jerusalem,  although,  owing  to  the  imperfections  of  church  history,  wehuve  no  cer- 
tain information  respecting  them.  On  his  last  journey  preceding  his  last  visit  |p  the  Gala- 
tians,  he  might  have  brought  with  him  one  of  these  smaller  collections. 

f  By  attempting  to  deduce  too  much  from  this  single  cause,  Storr  has  indulged  in 
many  forced  interpretations  and  assumptions. 

%  Owing  to  this  national  characteristic,  the  efficiency  of  the  gospel  among  them  wa3 
much  disturbed  and  weakened  in  after  ages. 

§  Ruckert  thinks  that  the  order  in  which  the  parties  are  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  i.  12, 
corresponds  to  the  period  of  their  formation ;  that  first  the  preaching  of  Apollos  occa- 
sioned a  portion  of  the  church  to  attach  themselves  rather  to  Apollos  than  to  Paul,  with 
whom  they  no  longer  felt  fully  satisfied,  though  they  had  not  yet  formed  themselves 
into  a  particular  party;  then  the  Judaizers,  taking  advantage  of  such  a  state  of 
feeling,  joined  the  partisans  of  Apollos  in  opposition  to  Paul;  thus  two  parties  were 
formed.     But  in  course  of  time  the  original  partisans  of  Apollos  discovered  that  they  could 


PAUL    AT   EPHESUS.  219 

teachers  of  the  Galatian  churches,  who  wished  to  introduce  a  Christianity 
more  mingled  with  Judaism — who  could  not  endure  the  independence 
and  freedom  with  which  the  gospel  published  by  Paul  was  developed 
among  the  Gentiles,  although  they  were  not  so  violent  as  the  Galatian 
false  teachers,  and  accordingly  named  themselves,  not  after  James, 
whom  the  most  decided  Judaizers  made  their  chief  authority,  but  after 
Peter.  Moreover,  we  must  carefully  notice  the  difference  of  circum- 
stances. The  Galatian  churches  were  mor.e  easily  operated  upon  by 
organs  of  the  Judaizing  party,  who  came  forward  from  among  them- 
selves. It  was  altogether  different  at  Corinth,  where  the  Judaizers  had 
to  operate  upon  men  of  a  decidedly  Grecian  character,  who  were  not  so 
susceptible  of  the  influence  of  Judaism.  Hence  they  did  not  venture 
to  come  forward  at  once,  and  disclose  their  intentions :  it  was  necessary 
first  to  prepare  the  soil  before  they  scattered  the  seed  ;  to  act  warily  and 
gently ;  to  accomplish  their  work  gradually ;  to  employ  a  variety  of 
artifices,  in  order  to  undermine  the  principles  on  which  Paul  preached 
the  gospel ;  to  infuse  a  mistrust  of  his  apostolic  character,  and  thus  to 
alienate  the  affections  of  his  converts  from  him.*  They  began  with  cast- 
ing doubts  on  Paul's  apostolic  dignity,  for  the  reasons  which  have  been 
before  mentioned ;  they  set  in  opposition  to  him,  as  the  only  genuine 
apostles,  those  who  were  instructed  and  ordained  by  Christ  himself 
They  understood  besides  how  to  instil  into  anxious  minds  a  number  of 
scruples,  to  which  a  life  spent  in  intercourse  with  heathens  would  easily 
give  rise,  and  which  persons  who  had  been  previously  proselytes  to  Ju- 
daism must  have  been  predisposed  to  entertain. 

Persons  whose  minds  took  this  direction,  placed  Peter,  as  an  apostle 
chosen  by  the  Lord  himself,  and  especially  distinguished  by  him,  in  op- 
position to  Paul,  who  had  assumed  the  office  at  a  later  period.  When 
the  strongly  marked  individuality  of  any  of  the  apostles  appropriated 
and  impressed  itself  upon  Christianity,  the  varied  form  thus  given  to  it 
was  fitted  to  the  different  spheres  of  activity  assigned  the  apostles  by 
God,  and  served  not  to  injure  the  unity  of  the  Christian  spirit,  but 
rather  in  this  very  manifoldness  to  illustrate  its  excellence ;  but  now 
among  those  who  attached  themselves  to  this  or  the  other  apostles,  one- 
sided tendencies  became  prominent,  and  that  variety  which  could  and 


not  agree  with  the  Judaizers,  who  had  at  first,  in  order  to  find  an  entrance,  concealed 
their  peculiarities,  and  thus  at  last  there  arose  a  third  distinct  party.  But  this  passage 
(i.  12)  cannot  avail  for  determining  the  chronological  relation  of  these  parties  to  one  an- 
other. Paul  here  follows  the  logical  relation,  without  adverting  to  the  chronological  order. 
He  places  the  partisans  of  Apollos  next  to  those  of  Paul,  because  they  only  formed  a  par- 
ticular section  of  the  Pauline  party ;  he  then  mentions  those  who  were  their  most  strenu- 
ous opponents;  and  lastly,  those  through  whose  existence  the  other  parties  would  be  pre- 
supposed. "We  have  throughout  no  data  by  which  to  determine  the  chronological  con- 
nexion of  the  first  three  parties. 

*  See  the  remarks  of  Baur,  in  his  essay  on  the  Christ-party  in  the  Corinthian  church 
(in  the  Tubinger  Zeitschrifl  fur  Theologie,  1831,  part  iv.,  p.  83.) 


220  PAUL   AT  EPHESUS. 

should  have  consisted  with  unity,  was  converted  by  them  into  an  exclu 
sive  contrariety.  As  a  one-sided  Petrine  party  was  formed  in  the  Co- 
rinthian church,  so  a  one-sided  Pauline  party  sprang  up  in  opposition  to 
it,  which  recognised  the  Pauline  as  the  only  genuine  form  of  Christianity, 
ridiculed  the  nice  distinctions  of  scrupulous  consciences,  and  set  them- 
selves in  stern  opposition  to  everything  Jewish.  In  one  of  their  tenden- 
cies we  find  the  germ  of  the  later  Judaizing  sects,  and  in  the  other,  that 
of  the  later  Marcionite  error. 

But  in  the  Pauline  party  itself  a  two-fold  direction  was  manifested 
on  the  following  grounds.  Among  the  disciples  of  John  who  came  to 
Ephesus,  and  considered  themselves  as  Christians,  though  their  know- 
ledge was  very  defective,  was  Apollos,  a  Jew  of  Alexandria,  who  had 
received  the  Jewish-Grecian  education,  peculiar  to  the  learned  among 
the  Alexandrian  Jews,  and  had  great  facility  in  the  use  of  the  Greek 
language.*  Aquila  and  his  wife  instructed  him  more  accurately  in  Chris- 
tianity, and  when  he  was  about  to  sail  to  Achaia,  commended  him  to  the 
Corinthian  church  as  a  man  who,  by  his  zeal  and  peculiar  gifts,  would 
be  able  to  do  much  for  the  furtherance  of  the  divine  cause,  especially  at 
Corinth,  where  his  Alexandrian  education  would  procure  him  a  more 
ready  access  to  a  part  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  His  Alexandrian  mode 
of  developing  and  representing  Christian  truths,  approaching  nearer  to 
the  Grecian  taste,  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  educated  classes  at 
Corinth ;  but  fascinated  by  it,  they  attached  too  great  importance  to 
this  peculiar  form,  and  despised,  in  contrast  with  it,  the  simple  preaching 
of  Paul,  who,  when  he  taught  among  them,  determined  to  know  noth- 
ing save  Jesus  the  crucified.  We  here  see  the  germ  of  that  Gnosis 
which  sprung  up  in  the  soil  of  Alexandria,  and  aimed  at  exalting  itself 
above  the  simple  faith  (Pistis)  of  the  gospel. 

But  it  has  been  lately  maintained  f  that  the  difference  between  the 
Pauline  party  and  that  of  Apollos,  related  not  to  any  difference  in  the 

*  The  epithet,  uvr/p  loytoc,  "  eloquent  man,"  given  to  him  in  Acts  xviii.  24,  probably 
denotes,  not  an  eloquent,  but  a  learned  man,  which  would  best  suit  an  Alexandrian,  since 
a  learned  literary  education,  and  not  eloquence,  was  the  precise  distinction  of  the  Alexan- 
drians; and  his  disputation  with  the  Jews  at  Corinth  suits  this  meaning  of  Xoyioc,  taken 
from  the  Jewish  point  of  view.  In  this  sense  the  word  is  found  both  in  Josephus  and 
Philo;  in  the  first,  loyioc  is  opposed  to  "  unlearned,"  Idiuraig,  De  Bell  Jud.  vi.  5,  §  3  ;  and 
by  Philo,  De  Vila  Mosis,  i.  §  5,  AlyvnTiuv  ol  loyiot,  (the  learned  of  the  Egyptians.)  But 
since  another  meaning  of  the  word,  as  it  was  at  that  time,  is  also  possible,  and  since  it  ap- 
pears, from  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  that  Apollos  was  also  a  man  eloquent  in 
the  Greek  language,  we  are  left  in  some  uncertainty  how  to  understand  the  epithet.  Ac- 
cording to  the  first  interpretation,  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  6vvarb<;  uv  kv  rale  ypacpalc, 
would  only  more  precisely  express  what  is  contained  in  Aoytog ;  according  to  the  second, 
it  would  be  a  perfectly  new  and  distinct  characteristic.  This  exegetical  question  is  of  no 
importance  historically,  for  certainly  both  epithets  are  applicable  to  Apollos. 

f  By  a  distinguished  young  theologian,  the  licentiate  Daniel  Schenkel,  in  his  Inquisilio 
Criiico-historiea  de  Ecclesia  Corinthiaca,  primava,  B'lsilecR,  1S38,  with  which  De  "Wette,  in 
his  late  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  has  expressed  his  concurrence. 


PABTIES    AT    CORINTH.  £21 

form  of  doctrine,  but  only  to  the  relation  in  which  Paul  and  Apollos 
stood  to  the  founding  of  the  Corinthian  church,  as  the  apostle  himself,  in 
1  Cor.  iii.  6,  7,  indicates  that  it  was  made  a  question,  whether  he  who 
laid  the  foundation,  or  he  who  raised  the  superstructure,  deserved  the 
preeminence.  But  if  we  follow  this  hint,  it  will  conduct  us  much  further. 
We  cannot  stop  short  at  these  merely  outward  relations,  but  must  seek 
in  the  characteristic  qualities  of  these  two  men,  who  stood  in  such  differ- 
ent relations  to  the  church,  for  the  reason  th#t  some  were  more  attached 
to  the  one,  and.  some  to  the  other.  We  may  presume  that  the  manner 
in  which  one  laid  the  foundation,  and  the  other  raised  the  superstruc- 
ture, depended  on  the  difference  of  their  characteristic  qualities.  To 
this  difference  Paul  himself  adverts,  when,  after  speaking  of  the  merely 
outward  relations  between  himself  and  Apollos,  he  represents  in  figura- 
tive language  the  various  structures  which  may  be  reared  on  the  founda- 
tion which  has  been  once  laid,  and  to  which  every  genuine  teacher  of 
Christianity  must  confine  himself;  1  Cor.  iii.  12.  The  connexion  evidently 
shows,  that  Paul  had  primarily  in  view  his  relation  to  the  party  of  Apol- 
los ;  every  other  explanation  is  forced.*  If  we  compare  the  qualities 
possessed  by  the  apostle  and  his  fellow-laborer,  as  far  as  our  information 
•extends,  we  may  easily  infer  the  difference  in  their  mode  of  teaching, 
and  in  their  respective  partisans.  That  Paul  possessed  great  force  and 
command  of  language,  we  may  conclude  with  certainty  from  his  epistles, 
as  well  as  from  his  discourse  at  Athens.  In  that  eloquence  which  is 
adapted  to  seize  powerfully  on  men's  minds,  he  was  inferior  to  no  preacher 
of  the  gospel,  not  even  to  Apollos  himself.  This  was  his  peculiar,  natural 
gift,  sanctified  and  elevated  for  the  cause  of  the  gospel,  in  which  he  may 
well  have  been  superior  even  to  Apollos ;  and  if  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brewsf  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  latter,  and  we  compare  it  with  those  of 
Paul,  it  would  serve  to  confirm  the  opinion.  In  dialectic  power  also, 
which  was  grounded  in  the  peculiar  character  of  his  intellect,  and  devel- 
oped and  improved  by  his  youthful  training  in  the  schools  of  the  Phari- 
sees, as  well  as  in  the  skilful  interpretation  and  use  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, he  was  certainly  surpassed  by  none.  But  still  between  himself  and 
Apollos  a  difference  not  unimportant  existed,  which  affected  their  pecu- 
liar style  of  teaching ;  the  latter,  as  an  Alexandrian,  had  received  an 
education  more  adapted  to  the  Grecian  mind  and  taste,  and  possessed  a 
greater  familiarity  with  the  pure  Grecian  phraseology,  in  which  Paul  was 
defective,  as  we  may  gather  from  his  epistles,  and  as  he  expressly  asserts ; 

*  We  must  carefully  distinguish  those  who,  by  assailing  the  unchangeable  foundation 
of  Christianity,  destroyed  the  temple  of  God  in  the  church,  1  Cor.  iii.  16  and  17,  from 
those  of  whom  Paul  judged  far  moro  leniently,  because  they  preserved  inviolate  the  foun- 
dation that  was  laid,  though  they  ad  led  to  it  what  was  more  or  less  human.  Of  the  lat- 
ter, he  affirms  that,  since  they  held  fast  the  foundation  of  salvation,  they  would  finally  be 
partakers  of  salvation,  though  after  a  painful  and  repeated  process  of  purification ;  of  the 
others,  that  they  would  come  to  ruin,  because  they  had  destroyed  the  work  of  God. 

f  See  farther  on. 


222  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

2  Cor.  xi.  6.  Now,  in  making  the  gospel  known  at  Corinth,  he  had 
special  reasons  for  rejecting  all  the  aids  that  otherwise  were  at  his  com- 
mand for  recommending  evangelical  truth,  and  for  using  only  the  "  dem- 
onstration of  the  spirit  and  of  power,"  which  accompanied  its  simple 
annunciation.  The  Alexandrian  culture  of  Apollos  must  thus  have  formed 
a  striking  contrast  to  the  simplicity  of  Paul's  preaching ;  and,  if  we  take 
into  account  the  circumstances  and  social  relations  of  the  Corinthians, 
we  cannot  wonder  that  a  preference  for  such  a  style  of  address  led  to 
the  formation  of  a  distinct  party  in  the  Corinthian  church.  It  was  not 
the  peculiar  style  of  Apollos  in  itself  which  Paul  condemned ;  it  became 
every  teacher  to  work  with  the  gifts  entrusted  to  him,  according  to  the 
training  which  the  Lord  had  given  him ;  but  he  combated  the  one-sided 
and  arrogant  over-valuation  of  this  talent,  the  excessive  estimation  in 
which  this  form  of  mental  culture  was  held.  It  by  no  means  follows, 
that  he  attributed  a  false  wisdom  to  Apollos  himself;*  but  the  one-sided 
direction  of  his  partisans,  in  which  the  "  seeking  after  wisdom,"  oofyiav 
fyTeiv,  predominated,  would  easily  produce  a  false  wisdom,  by  which 
evangelical  truth  would  be  obscured  or  thrust  into  the  background. 
Paul  perceived  this  threatening  danger,  and  hence  felt  himself  impelled 
strenuously  to  combat  the  principle  on  which  such  a  tendency  was 
founded. 

Besides  the  parties  already  mentioned,  we  find  a  fourth  in  the  Corin- 
thian church,  whose  peculiarities  it  is  more  difficult  to  ascertain,  since, 
judging  from  its  name,  we  cannot  readily  suppose  that  it  belonged  to  a 
sect  blamed  by  the  apostle,  and  in  no  other  part  of  the  first  Epistle  of  Paul 
to  the  Corinthians  do  we  find  any  distinct  references  to  it  from  which  we 
might  infer  its  specific  character ;  it  was  composed  of  persons  who  said 
that  they  were  "  of  Christ;"  1  Cor.  i.  12.  If  we  consider  this  party 
as  involved  in  the  censure  expressed  by  the  apostle,f  which  the  grammat- 

*  This  charge  against  Apollos,  in  the  opinion  of  Schenkel  and  De  "Wette,  i3  well 
founded,  but  by  no  means  follows  from  the  view  taken  by  ourselves  and  others  of  the 
peculiarities  of  the  party  of  Apollos. 

f  The  interpretation  which  has  been  proposed  by  Pott  and  Schott,  and  according  to 
which,  all  conjectures  respecting  the  peculiar  character  of  a  Christ-party  at  Corinth  would 
be  superfluous,  is  grammatically  possible.  It  assumes  that  Paul,  in  this  passage,  only 
enumerated  historically  the  various  parties  in  the  Corinthian  church,  and  does  not  infer  that 
all  who  are  specified  came  under  the  censure  of  the  apostle.  Those  indeed  who  firmly 
adhered  to  the  doctrine  taught  by  Paul,  and  esteemed  him,  as  he  wished,  only  as  an  organ 
of  Christ;  those  who  wished  to  keep  aloof  from  all  party  contentions,  and  called  them- 
selves only  after  Christ  their  common  head,  must  be  represented  as  a  particular  party  in 
relation  to  the  other  Corinthian  parties,  and  hence  Paul  distinguished  them  by  the  name 
which  they  assumed  in  opposition  to  all  party  feelings.  If  the  words  in  this  connexion 
only  contained  an  historical  enumeration  of  the  various  parties,  such  an  interpretation 
might  be  valid.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  Paul  evidently  mentions  these  parties  in  terms 
of  censure.  The  censure  applies  to  all  equally  as  parties  who  substituted  something  in  the 
place  of  that  single  relation  to  Christ  which  alone  was  of  real  worth.  "  Has  then  Christ 
become  divided  ?"  he  proceeds  to  ask.  "No — he  will  not  allow  himself  to  be  divided. 
Ye  ought  all  to  call  yourselves  after  that  one  Christ  who  redeemed  you  by  his  death  od 


PARTIES    AT   CORINTH.  223 

ical  construction  of  the  passage  seems  to  require,  we  must  believe  that 
these  persons  did  not  wish  to  be  "  of  Christ,"  in  the  sense  in  which  Paul 
desired  that  all  the  Corinthians  should  be,  but  that  they  appropriated 
Christ  to  themselves  in  an  erroneous  seuse,  and  wished  to  make  him,  as 
it  were,  the  head  of  their  party.  And  we  must  then  suppose  that  the 
apostle,  though  with  an  allusion  in  the  first  instance  to  their  party  desig- 
nation, yet  including  a  reference  to  all  the  Corinthian  parties,  said,  "  Is 
the  one  Christ  become  divided  ?  has  each  party  their  portion  of  Christ, 
as  their  own  Christ?  No!  there  is  only  one  Christ  for  all,  who  was 
crucified  for  you,  to  whom  ye  were  devoted  and  pledged  by  baptism." 

We  have  now  to  inquire  what  can  be  determined  respecting  the  char- 
acter and  origin  of  this  Christ-party.  If  we  regard  its  being  mentioned 
next  to  the  party  of  Peter,  and  compare  this  with  the  collocation  of  the 
parties  of  Apollos  and  Paul,  we  might  think  it  most  probable  that  the 
relation  between  the  two  former  was  similar  to  that  which  existed  be- 
tween the  two  latter;  and  that,  therefore,  a  subdivision  of  the  general 
party  of  Jewish  Christians  was  intended.  And  as  part  of  these  attached 
themselves  to  Peter,  and  part  to  James,  we  might  be  led  to  imagine  a 
party  belonging  to  James  as  well  as  a  Petrine  party ;  the  former  more 
tenacious  and  violent  in  their  Judaism  ;  the  latter  more  liberal  and  moder- 
ate. But  this  supposition  is  not  at  all  favored  by  the  designation,  "  they 
of  Christ,"  ol  rov  Xpiarov,  for  the  interpretation,*  that  the  adherents  of 
James  should  so  name  themselves,  because  the  epithet  "  brother  of 
Christ,"  adzXtybg  rov  Xpiarov,  was  given  to  that  apostle  as  a  title  of 
honor,  seems  very  unnatural.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  such  a 
party  had  existed  in  Corinth,  they  would  have  called  themselves  "  those 
of  James,"  ol  rov  'laauflov. 

The  view  that  the  Christ-party  Avas  composed  of  Jewish  Christians 
must  be  stated  and  developed  very  differently  in  order  to  bring  it  nearer 
to  probability.f  The  name  ol  rov  Xpiarov,  it  may  be  said,  was  one 
which  the  partisans  of  Peteiiassumed  in  opposition  to  Paul  and  his  dis- 
ciples, in  order  to  mark  themselves  as  those  who  adhered  to  the  genuine 
apostles  of  Christ,  from  whom  they  had  received  the  pure  doctrine  of 
Christ,  and  thus  by  their  teachers  were  connected  with  Christ  himself; 


the  cross,  and  to  whom  ye  were  devoted  by  baptism."  These  words  are  directed  equally 
against  all  parties,  and  perhaps  exactly  in  this  form,  owing  to  the  preceding  designation 
of  those  who  arrogantly  named  themselves' "  those  of  Christ,"  ol  tov  Xpiarov.  But  it 
these  persons  had  assumed  this  title  in  the  sense  which  Paul  approved,  he  would  not  have 
classed  them  with  those  who  incurred  his  censure*;  these  words  could  not  have  applied  to 
them  but  he  must  have  expressed  his  approbation  of  their  spirit  which  must  have  appeared 
to  him  as  the  only  right  one. 

•  By  Storr,  or  by  Berthold,  as  having  i  rference  to  several  dSelcjioiis  tov  Kvpiov  among 
the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel. 

f  As  it  has  lately  been  developed  with  much  spirit  and  acuteness,  in  the  essay  already 
referred  to  by  Baur,  in  the  Tubinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1831,  which  no  person  can 
read  without  instruction,  even  if  they  do  not  agree  with  the  views  of  the  writer. 


224  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

and,  on  the  other  hand,  by  applying  this  title  exclusively  to  their  own 
party,  they  intended  to  brand  the  other  Christians  at  Corinth  as  those 
who  did  not  deserve  the  name  of  Christians,  who  were  not  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  nor  the  scholars  of  a  genuine  apostle  of  Christ,  but  of  a  man 
who  had  adulterated  the  pure  Christian  doctrine,  and  had  promulgated 
a  doctrine  of  his  own  arbitary  invention  as  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  This 
view  would  appear  perfectly  to  correspond  with  the  phrase  ol  rov 
'Xpiorov,  and  might  be  confirmed  by  many  antithetical  references  in  both 
the  epistles  in  which  Paul  vindicates  his  genuine  apostolic  character,  and 
asserts,  that  he  could  say  with  the  same  right  as  any  one  else,  that  he 
was  "  of  Christ  y"  2  Cor.  x.  7.  But  while  such  passages  certainly  are 
directed  against  those  who,  on  the  grounds  already  mentioned,  disputed 
Paul's  apostolic  authority,  they  by  no  means  prove  the  existence  of  such 
a  party-name  among  the  Jews.  Some  persons  might  easily  be  led  to  find 
in  2  Cor.  x.  V,  a  confirmation  of  that  view  of  the  Christ-party.  But 
however  they  might  be  led  by  the  similarity  of  the  expression  to  refer 
this  passage  to  the  Christ-party  and  to  make  use  of  it  according  to  this 
supposition,  yet  we  must  dispute  the  correctness  of  such  an  application  ; 
for  evidently  the  reference  here  is  not  to  a  party  like  those  who  are 
named  in  1  Cor.  i.  12,  but  only  to  the  leaders  of  a  certain  clique  who 
maintained  that  they  stood  as  preachers  of  the  gospel  in  a  special  relation 
to  Christ,  and  wished  to  take  the  precedence  of  Paul ;  those  Judaizing 
party-leaders  who  with  their  obtrusive  urgency  and  intermeddling  be- 
lieved they  could  boast  of  great  activity  in  the  cause  of  the  gospel.  But 
because  such  men  boasted  personally  of  their  special  connexion  with 
Christ,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  a  party  attaching  itself  to  them  could 
have  felt  justified  in  transferring  to  itself  collectively  what  they  claimed 
for  themselves  as  individuals. 

And  then  the  difficulty  still  remains,  that  by  the  position  of  the  phrase 
ol  tov  Xptorov,  we  are  led  to  expect  the  designation  of  a  party  in  some 
way  differing  from  the  Petrine,  though  belonging  to  the  same  general 
division  ;  but,  according  to  this  view,  the  Christ-party  would  differ  from 
the  Petrine  only  in  name,  which  would  be  quite  contradictory  to  the  re- 
lation of  this  party-name  to  those  that  preceded  it.*  Accordingly,  this 
view  can  only  be  tenable,  if  not  a  merely  formal,  but  a  material  difference 
can  be  found  between  the  two  last  parties.  And  it  might,  perhaps,  be 
said  that  not  all  the  members  of  the  Petrine  party,  but  only  the  most 
rigid  and  violent  in  their  Judaism,  who  would  not  acknowledge  the 
Pauline  Gentile  Christians  as  standing  in  communion  with  the  Messiah, 

*  Baur  says  indeed,  p.  77,  "The  apostle's  object  in  accumulating  so  many  names, 
might  be  to  depict  the  party  spirit  prevalent  in  the  Corinthian  church,  which  showed  itself 
in  their  delighting  in  tho  multiplication  of  sectarian  names,  which  denoted  various  tints 
and  shades,  but  not  absolutely  distinct  parties."  But  if  this  were  the  case,  the  explana- 
tion by  which  a  different  shade  of  party  is  pointed  out  can  be  correct  only  of  one  of  these 
party- names. 


PARTIES    AT    CORINTH.  225 

had  applied  to  their  Judaizing  party  the  exclusive  epithet  of  ol  rov 
Xptorov.* 

But  it  has  always  appeared  to  us  to  be  contrary  to  historical  analogy, 
that  those  persons  who  adhered,  in  opposition  to  Paul,  to  another  apostle, 
and  considered  him  alone  as  genuine,  should  not  name  themselves  after 
one  whom  they  looked  upon  as  the  necessary  link  of  their  connexion  with 
Christ.  In  the  epistle  itself,  we  cannot  find  allusions  that  would  estab- 
lish this,  since  the  passages  which  may  be*  supposed  to  contain  such 
allusions  can  be  very  well  understood  without  them. 

We  cannot  hope  in  this  inquiry  to  attain  to  conclusions  altogether 
certain  and  sure,  for  the  marks  and  historical  data  are  not  sufficient  for 
the  purpose.  But  we  shall  best  guard  against  arbitrary  conjectures,  and 
arrive  at  the  truth  most  confidently,  if  we  first  attend  to  what  may 
be  gathered  from  the  name  itself  and  its  position  in  relation  to  the  other 
party-names,  and  then  compare  this  with  the  whole  state  of  the  Corin- 
thian church.  In  the  results  which  may  thus  be  obtained,  we  must  then 
endeavor  to  separate  the  doubtful  and  disputable  from  the  certain  or 
probable. 

We  shall  by  no  means  be  justified  in  concluding  that,  by  virtue  of  the 
logical  connexion  of  the  two  members  of  the  sentence  to  one  another,  the 
persons  who  named  themselves  after  Christ  must  have  borne  the  same 
relation  to  the  Petrine  party  as  the  adherents  of  Apollos  to  those  of  Paul. 
This  conclusion,  if  correct,  would  be  favorable  to  the  view  which  we  last 
considered.  But  the  relation  of  the  two  members  is  not  logical  only, 
but  subject  to  certain  historical  conditions.  Paul  does  not,  as  in  other 
cases,  form  the  members  of  the  antithesis  merely  from  the  thoughts  ; 
but  the  manner  in  which  he  selected  his  terms  was  determined  by  matters 
of  fact.  As  the  Judaizers  formed  in  reality  only  one  party,  Paul  could 
designate  them  only  by  one  name,  and  since  he  was  obliged  to  choose 
his  terms  according  to  the  facts,  he  could  not  make  the  two  members 
exactly  correspond  to  one  another. 

From  the  name  of  this  party  viewed  in  relation  to  other  party-names, 
we  shall  arrive  at  the  following  conclusion  with  tolerable  certainty. 
There  were  those  who,  while  they  renounced  the  apostles,  professed  to 
adhere  to  Christ  alone,  to  acknowledge  him  only  as  their  teacher,  and  to 
receive  what  he  announced  as  truth  from  himself  without  the  interven- 
tion of  any  other  person.  This  was  such  a  manifestation  of  self-will,  such 
an  arrogant  departure  from  the  historical  process  of  development  or- 
dained by  God  in  the  appropriation  of  divine  revelation,  as  would  in  the 
issue  lead  to  an  arbitrary  treatment  of  the  contents  of  Christian  doctrine ; 
for  the  apostles  were  the  organs  ordained  and  formed  by  God,  by  whom 
the  doctrine  of  Christ  was  to  be  propagated,  and  its  meaning  communi- 
cated to  all  men.     But  it  might  easily  happen,  while  some  were  disposed 

f  This  last  form  of  this  hypothesis  has  been  fully  developed  by  its  author  in  the  Tubin- 
ger  Zeitschrift,  1836,  4  Heft. 

15 


226 


PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 


to  adhere  to  Pad  alone,  others  to  Apollcs,  and  a  third  party  to  Peter,  at 
last  some  persons  appeared  who  would  adhere  to  none  of  these  parties, 
and, professed  to  follow  Christ  alone,  yet  with  an  arrogant  self-will  which 
set  aside  all  human  instrumentality  ordained  by  God.  If  we  now  view 
this  as  the  result  which  presents  itself  to  us  with  tolerable  certainty, 
that  there  was  at  Corinth  a  party  desirous  of  attaching  themselves  to 
Christ  alone,  independently  of  the  apostles,  who  constructed  in  their  own 
way  a  .Christianity  dif event  from  that  announced  by  the  apostles,  we 
may  imagine  three  different  ways  in  which  they  proceeded.  For  this 
object  they  might  have  made  use  of  a  collection  of  the  sayings  of  Christ, 
which  had  fallen  into  their  hands,  and  set  what  they  found  there  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  apostolic  doctrines  ;  or  they  might  have  pretended  to  derive 
their  Christianity  from  an  inward  source  of  knowledge,  either  a  super- 
natural inward  light  or  the  light  of  natural  reason— a  more  mystical 
or  a  more  rational  tendency.  If  we  assented  to  the  first  supposition, 
still  we  could  not  satisfy  ourselves  without  imagining  a  certain  subjective 
element  in  the  manner  of  explaining  those  discourses  of  Christ ;  for  with- 
out the  infusion  of  such  an  element,  the  tendency  to  this  separation  from 
the  apostolic  instrumentality  could  not  have  originated,  and  thus  the 
principal  question  would  still  remain  to  be  answered,  whether  we  are  to 
consider  the  subjective  element  as  mystical  or  rational. 

According  to  a  hypothesis*  lately  developed  with  great  acuteness,  but 
resting  on  a  number  of  arbitrary  suppositions,  the  tendency  we  are  speak- 
ing of  mast  have  been  mystical.  As  Paul  had  considered  the  immediate 
revelation  of  Christ  to  himself  as  equivalent  to  the  outward  election  of* 
the  other  apostles  ;  so  there  were  other  persons  who  thought  that  they 
could  appeal  to  such  an  inward  revelation  or  vision,  and  thus  assail  the 
apostolic  authority  of  Paul,  while  they  sought  to  establish  their  own, 
and  threatened  to  substitute  an  inward  ideal  Christ  for  the  historical 
Christ.  These  representatives  of  the  one-sided  mystical  tendency,  should 
have  been  the  principal  opponents  with  whom  Paul  had  to  contend. 
But  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  we  can  find  no  trace  of  such  a 
tendency  combated  by  him  ;  and  in  all  the  passages  to  which  the  advo- 
cates of  this  hypothesis  appeal,  a  reference  to  it  seems  to  be  arbitrarily 
imposed. 

When  Paul,  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  so 
impressively  brings  forward  the  doctrine  of  Christ  the  Crucified,  and 
says  that  he  had  published  ibis  in  all  its  simplicity  without  attempting  to 
support  it  by  the  Grecian  puilosophy,  there  is  not  the  slightest  intima- 
tion that  a  tendency  (such  as  we  have  alluded  to)  which  aimed  at  sub- 
stituting another  Christ  in  the  room  of  Christ  the  Crucified,  existed  in 
the  Corinthian  church.  In  a  place  where,  by  the  over-valuation  of  any 
kind  of  philosophy,  the  simple  gospel  was  liable- to  be  set  in  the  back- 

*  By  Schenkel  in  the  Essay  before  mentioned,  and  advo.  ated  by  De  Wette  in  his  Com 
mentary  on  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 


PARTIES    AT    CORINTH.  227 

ground,  such  language  might  very  properly  have  been  used,  even  though 
no  ideal  or  mystical  Christ  were  substituted  instead  of  the  historical  ; 
and  it  is  evident  to"  what  false  conclusions  we  should  be  led,  if  we 
inferred  from  such  a  declaration  the  existence  of  a  tendency  that  denied 
Christ  the  Crucified.  Paul  opposed  the  preaching  of  Jesus  the  Crucified 
to  two  tendencies, — the  Jewish  fondnese  for  signs,  and  the  arrogant 
philosophy  of  the  Greeks,  but  never  to  a  mystical  tendency  which  would 
depreciate  the  historical  facts  of  Christianity.  Against  a  tendency  of* 
this  kind,  he  would  certainly  have  argued  in  a  very  different  manner. 

The  sensuous  tendency  of  the  Jewish  spirit  we  should  expect  to  meet 
with  in  the  Jewish  part  of  the  Corinthian  church,  the  pride  of  philoso- 
phy in  those  who  attached  themselves  to  Apollos,  since  from  what  hag 
been  said  we  must  suppose  that  there  was  a  distinct  party  composed  of 
such  persons.  As  Paul  when  he  spoke  against  the  Grecian  pride  of 
philosophy,  had  this  party  of  Apollos  specially  in  his  mind,  by  a  natural 
transition  he  spoke  in  the  next  place  of  his  relation  to  Apollos. 

The  passage  in  2  Cor.  xi.  4  has  been  adduced  to  prove  that  Paul's 
opponents  had  preached  another  Christ  and  another  gospel.  Paul 
reproached  the  Corinthians  with  having  given  themselves  up  to  such 
erroneous  teachers.  But  in  that  whole  section  he  occupies  himself,  not 
with  combating  a  false  doctrine,  as  he  must  have  done  if  the  representa- 
tives of  a  mysticism  that  undermined  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
faith  had  been  his  opponents ;  but  he  had  only  to  combat  the  preten- 
sions of  persons  who  wished  to  make  their  own  authority  supreme  in 
the  Corinthian  church,  and  not  to  acknowledge  him  as  an  apostle.  These 
people  themselves,  he  says  in  this  connexion,  could  not  deny,  that  he  had 
performed  everything  which  could  be  required  of  an  apostle  as  founder 
of  a  Church,  for  he  had  preached  to  them  the  gospel  of  Jesus  the  Cruci- 
fied and  the  Risen,  and  had  communicated  to  them  the  powers  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  by  his  ministry.  With  justice  these  persons,  he  said,  might 
appear  against  him,  and  assume  the  management  of  the  church,  if  they 
could  really  show  that  there  was  another  Jesus  than  the  one  announced 
by  Paul,  another  gospel  than  that  which  he  proclaimed,  or  another  Holy 
Spirit  than  that  whose  powers  had  been  efficient  among  them.* 

*  I  account  for  the  irregularity  in  the  "might  bear,"  dveixeade,  2  Cor.  xi.  4,  in  this 
way, — that  Paul  was  penetrated  with  the  conviction,  that  the  case,  which  in  form  he  had 
assumed  to  be  possible,  was  in  fact  impossible:  This  fourth  verse  is  thus  connected  with 
the  preceding;  I  fear  that  you  have  departed  from  Christian  simplicity  ;  for  if  it  were  not 
so,  you  could  not  have  allowed  yourselves  to  be  governed  by  persons  who  could  impart  to 
you  nothing  but  what  you  have  received  from  me ;  for  I  consider  (v.  5)  myself  to  stand 
behind  the  chief  apostles  in  no  respect.  By  this  analysis,  the  objections  of  De  Wette, 
p.  237,  against  this  interpretation  are  at  once  obviated.  Against  the  other  mode  of 
explanation,  I  have  to  object  that  it  does  not  suit  the  connexion  with  v.  5  ;  that  the 
words  would  then  be  unnecessarily  multiplied  ;  that  Paul  would  then  hardly  have  used 
the  words  "ye  receive  another  spirit,"  nvev^ia  (repov  ^a/i/Siivere,  which  refer  only  to  the 
receiving  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  also  think  that  he  would  then  have  said,  not  'Itjoovv,  but 
XpiGTuv,  for  these  mystics  would  rather  have  preached  another  Christ  than  this  historical 


228  PAUL   AT  EPHESUS. 

The  opponents  of  this  view  of  the  passage  believe,  like  many  others, 
that  those  who  call  themselves  ol  rov  ~Kpiorov  are  mentioned  by  Paul 
himself  in  2  Cor.  x.  7.  But  here  only  such  can  be  understood  as  boasted 
of  a  special  inward  connexion  with  Christ.  But  I  do  not  perceive  why 
the  epithet  should  not  be  applied  to  every  person  who  thought  that  in 
any  sense  they  particularly  belonged  to  Christ,  or  could  boast  of  any 
special  connexion  with  him.  From  the  expression  "  after  the  outward 
appearance,"  Kara  TTpooonov*  it  is  clear  that  these  persons  boasted  of  an 
outward  connexion  with  Christ,  which  certainly  would  not  suit  the  re- 
presentatives of  a  mystical  tendency.  Indeed,  throughout  the  whole  sec- 
tion he  distinguishes  the  opponents  of  whom  he  is  speaking,  as  those 
who  wished  to  establish  a  purely  outward  preeminence  (2  Cor.  xi.  18), 
founded  on  their  Jewish  descent,  and  their  connexion  with  the  apostles 
chosen  by  Christ  himself,  and  with  the  original  church  in  Palestine. 
Would  Paul,  if  he  had  to  do  with  such  idealizing  mystics,  have  conceded 
to  them,  even  for  the  time  only,  that  they  stood  in  connexion  with 
Christ,  that  they  could  call  themselves  his  servants  ?  Would  he  not 
from  the  first  have  made  it  a  question  whether  it  was  the  true  Christ 
after  whom  they  called  themselves  ?  And  how  can  it  be  imagined  that 
Paul,  if  his  opponents  were  of  this  class,  would  have  used  expressions 
which  are  directed  rather  against  the  sensuous  perversion  of  the  religious 
sentiment,  and  might  easily  be  misinterpreted  in  favor  of  that  false  spir- 
itualism? Would  he  have  said,  "Yea,  though  we  have  known  Christ 
after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we  him  no  more ;  but  only  a 
spiritual  Christ  who  is  exalted  above  all  limited  earthly  relations,  with 
whom  we  can  now  enter  into  communion  in  a  spiritual  manner,  since  we 
have  a  share  in  the  new  spiritual  creation  proceeding  from  him ;"  2  Cor. 
v.  16,  I7.f 

When  Paul  appealed  to  the  revelations  imparted  to  him,  it  was  not 
for  the  confutation  of  those  who  supported  themselves  only  by  such  in- 
ward experiences  ;  but  of  those  principally  who  would  not  acknowledge 
him  as  a  genuine  apostle,  equal  to  those  who  were  chosen  by  Christ 
during  his  earthly  life, — the  same  persons,  against  whom  he  maintained 
his  independent  apostolic  commission,  as  delivered  to  him  by  Christ  on 
his  personal  appearance  to  him  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  2. 

person  Jesus ;  or  as,  at  a  later  period,  the  Gnostics,  who  held  similar  notions,  taught  that 
there  was  not  a  twofold  Jesus,  but  a  twofold  Christ,  or  distinguished  between  a  heavenly 
Christ  and  a  human  Jesus.  On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  interpretation  which  I  have 
followed,  Paul  would  of  course  say,  "another  Jesus  than  the  one  I  preach,"  referring  to 
an  historical  personage,  and  the  events  of  his  life. 

*  A  comparison  of  the  passage  in  2  Cor.  v.  12,  (where  the  kv  npoouTry  is  opposed  to 
Kapdig),  appears  to  me  to  prove  that  the  words  must  be  so  understood;  the  antithesis  of 
the  outward  and  inward  is  quite  in  Paul's  style. 

f  These  words  contain  a  contrast  to  his  former  Jewish  convictions,  and  his  earlier  con 
ception  of  the  character  of  the  Messiah ;  also  to  all  that  was  antecedent  to  Christianity, 
and  independent  of  it ;  for  from  this  point  of  view  all  things  must  in  some  measure  be- 
come new. 


PARTIES   AT   CORINTH.  229 

Had  he  been  called  to  oppose  the  tendency  of  a  false  mysticism  and 
spiritualism,  he,  who  understood  so  well  how  to  strike  at  the  root  of  er- 
ror and  delusion,  would  have  certainly  entered  more  fully  into  conflict 
with  such  an  erroneous  direction  of  the  religious  sentiment,  one  so  dan- 
gerous to  genuine  Christianity ;  and  he  would  have  had  the  best  oppor- 
tunity for  this  in  treating  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit. 

We  must  then  consider  this  view  of  the  Christ-party  as  entirely  un- 
supported by  the  epistle  of  Paul,  and  only  deduced  from  it  by  a  number 
of  arbitrary  interpretations.*  While  those  whose  views  we  are  oppos- 
ing, trace  the  origin  of  such  a  party  to  a  certain  tendency  of  Judaism, 
we,  on  the  contrary,  are  obliged  to  refer  it  to  a  Grecian  element. 

From  the  peculiar  qualities  of  the  Grecian  mind,  which  was  not  dis 
posed  to  submit  itself  to  an  objective  authority,  but  readily  moulded 
everything  in  a  manner  conformable  to  its  own  subjectivity,  such  a  ten- 
dency as  that  we  have  been  speaking  of,  might  easily  proceed. f  At  that 
time,  there  were  many  educated  and  half-educated  individuals,  who  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  popular  polytheism.  These  persons  listened  to  the 
words  of  Christ,  which  impressed  them  by  their  sublimity  and  spirit- 
uality, and  believed  that  in  him  they  had  met  with  a  reformer  of  the  re- 
ligious condition  of  mankind,  such  as  they  had  been  longing  for.  We 
have  already  remarked,  that  a  collection  of  the  memorable  actions  and  dis 
courses  of  Christ,  had  most  probably  been  in  circulation  from  a  very  early 
period.  Might  they  not  have  procured  such  a  document,  and  then  con- 
structed by  means  of  it,  a  peculiar  form  of  Christian  doctrine,  modelled 
according  to  their  Grecian  subjectivity  ?  These  persons  probably  be- 
longed to  the  ciass  of  the  wisdom-seeking  Greeks,  at  which,  although  the 
Christian  church  made  little  progress  among  the  higher  classes,  we  need 
not  be  surprised,  since  in  this  city  a  certain  degree  of  culture  was  almost 
universal;  and  from  the  words  which  tell  us,  that  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  not  many  of  the  philosophically  trained,  not  many  of  the  highest 
class  were  to  be  found,  we  may  infer,  that  some  such  persons  must  have 
belonged  to  it;  one  individual  is  mentioned  in  Romans  xvi.  23,  who  filled 
an  important  civil  office  in  Corinth. J 

But  against  this  supposition,  the  same  objections  may  be  urged, 
which  we  made  against  another  view  of  the  Christ-party,  that  Paul  has 

*  I  find  no  ground  for  a  comparison  with  Montanism,  Marcion,  and  the  Clementines, 
and  I  must  consider  as  arbitrary  the  explanations  that  have  been  given  of  the  first  epistle 
of  Clemens  Romanus  (to  which,  to'  I  cannot  ascribe  so  high  an  antiquity),  in  order  to 
elucidate  the  affairs  of  the  Corinthran  church  in  the  times  of  the  apostle  Paul. 

f  The  reasons  alleged  by  Baur,  in  his  late  Essay  on  this  subject,  why  such  a  form  of 
error  could  not  exist  at  this  time,  do  not  convince  me. 

%  Baur  says  (1.  c.  p.  11),  "Religion,  not  philosophy,  led  to  Christianity."  But  it  is 
not  altogether  improbable,  that  a  person  at  that  time  might  have  been  led  by  a  relig- 
ious interest,  which  could  find  no  satisfaction  in  the  popular  religion,  to  philosophy,  and 
by  the  same  interest  be  carried  onward  to  Christianity,  without  adopting  it  in  its  unalloyed 
simplicity.  Why  should  not  such  phenomena,  which  certainly  occurred  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, have  arisen  from  the  same  causes  at  this  period  ? 


230  PAUL  AT   EPHESUS. 

not  specially  directed  his  argumentation  against  the  principles  of  such  a 
party,  though  they  threatened  even  more  than  those  of  other  parties  to 
injure  apostolic  Christianity.  Still  what  he  says  on  other  occasions,  re- 
specting the  only  source  of  the  knowledge  of  truths  that  rest  on  divine 
Revelation  ;  and  against  the  presumption  of  unenlightened  reason,  set- 
ting herself  up  as  an  arbitress  of  divine  things ;  and  on  the  nothingness 
of  a  proud  philosophy,  (l  Cor.  ii.  11,)  forms  the  most  powerful  argumen- 
tation against  the  fundamental  error  of  this  party,  even  if  he  did  not  have 
it  specially  in  view ;  and  it  is  a  never-failing  characteristic  of  the  apos- 
tle's mode  of  controversy,  that  he  seizes  hold  of  the  main  roots  of  error, 
instead  of  busying  himself  too  much  (as  was  the  practice  of  later  eccle- 
siastical polemics)  with  its  branches  and  offsets.  Nor  is  it  altogether 
improbable,  that  the  adherents  of  this  party  were  not  numerous,  and  ex- 
ercised only  a  slight  influence  in  the  church.  They  occupied  too  remote 
a  position  to  receive  much  benefit  from  the  warnings  and  arguments  of 
Paul,  and  he  had  only  to  set  the  church  on  its  guard  against  an  injurious 
intercourse  with  such  persons.  "  Be  not  deceived,"  said  he;  "  evil  com- 
munications corrupt  good  manners."     1  Cor.  xv.  33. 

If  this  view  be  thought  too  venturesome,  since  in  the  two  Epistles  tc 
the  Corinthians  no  other  distinct  trace  of  a  direct  conflict  with  such  a 
party  can  be  found,  it  only  remains  to  be  said,  that  there  were  certain 
persons,  ol  rov  Xpiorov,  of  whom  Paul  knew  nothing  worse  than  that, 
instead  of  making  common  cause  with  all  those  whom  they  ought  to  have 
acknowledged  as  membei-s  of  the  one  body  of  Christ,  they  made  even 
their  wishing  to  belong  to  Christ  alone  an  affair  of  party,  and  so  instead 
of  putting  an  end  to  all  party  feeling  by  a  reference  to  Christ,  created  a 
fourth  party,  which  by  its  opposition  to  the  other  parties  would  be  hur- 
ried unavoidably  into  much  that  was  one-sided  and  erroneous.  We 
should  find  the  first  appearance  of  this  kind  in  the  fact,  that  the  wishing 
to  join  themselves  to  no  party  was  made  an  affair  of  party.  And  thus 
by  the  reference  to  such  a  party,  Paul  might  have  been  led  to  say,  Is 
Christ  divided  ?  that  they  could  think  of  calling  themselves  alone  after 
Christ,  and  dare  appropriate  to  themselves  a  name  that  belonged  to 
all.  In  this  way  a  better  explanation  would  be  obtained,  how  it  is  that 
no  further  distinct  reference  to  such  a  party  occurs  in  his  epistles. 

The  opposition  between  the  Pauline  and  Petrine  parties,  or  the  Jew- 
ish and  Gentile  Christians,  was,  in  reference  to  the  relations  of  life,  the 
strongest  of  all  these  party  differences,  and  gave  rise  to  many  sep- 
arate controversies.  The  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians  when  they 
lived  in  intercourse  with  the  heathen,  suffered  much  disquietude,  if  un- 
awares they  partook  of  any  food  which  had  been  rendered  unclean  by 
its  connexion  with  idolatrous  rites.  Various  rules  were  laid  down  by 
the  Jewish  theologians  to  determine  what  was,  and  what  was  not  defil- 
ing, and  various  methods  were  devised  for  guarding  against  such  defile- 
ment, on  which  much  may  be  found  in  the  Talmud.  Now,  as  persons 
might  easily  run  a  risk  of  buying  in  the  market  portions  of  the  flesh  of 


STATK   OF    THE    CHURCH    AT    COmXTII.  231 

imimals  which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice,  or  might  have  such  set  before 
them  in  houses  where  they  were  guests,  their  daily  life  was  harassed  with 
constant  perplexities.  But  scruples  on  this  point  were  probably  found, 
not  merely  in  those  who  were  avowedly  among  the  Judaizing  opponents 
of  Paid,  but  they  also  disturbed  many  Christians  of  weaker  minds.  As 
faith  in  their  false  gods  had  previously  exercised  great  influence  over 
them,  so  they  could  not  altogether  divest  themselves  of  an  impression, 
that  beings  whom  they  had  so  lately  reverenced  as  deities,  were  some- 
thing more  thaircreatures  of  the  imagination.  But  from  their  new  point 
of  view,  this  reflection  of  their  ancient  belief  assumed  a  peculiar  form. 
As  the  whole  system  of  heathenism  was  in  their  eyes  the  kingdom  of 
darkness,  their  deities  were  now  transformed  into  evil  spirits,  and  they 
feared  lest,  by  partaking  of  the  flesh  consecrated  to  them,*  they  should 
come  into  fellowship  with  evil  spirits.f  That  these  scruples  affected  not 
merely  Judaizers,  but  other  Christians  also,  is  evident  from  a  case  in  re- 
ference to  which  Paul  gives  specific  directions.  He  supposes  the  ex- 
ample, that  such  weak  believers  were  guests  at  the  table  of  a  heathen.* 
Now  we  may  be  certain,  that  none  who  belonged  to  the  Judaizers  could 
have  made  up  their  minds  to  eat  with  a  heathen. § 

*  Thus  Peter,  in  the  Clementines,  says  to  tbe  heathens:  TlpofyuoEt  t£v  leyo/icvuv 
UpodvTuv  xaAETTwv  fia.ifj.6vuv  kfimnliarsde.  (Under  pretext  of  the  so-called  sacrifices  ye 
are  filled  with  cruel  demons.)     Horn.  xi.  §  15. 

\  The  passage  in  1  Cor.  viii.  7,  might,  it  is  true,  be  understood  of  persons  who,  though 
they  had  passed  over  to  Christian  monotheism,  were  still  in  some  measure  entangled  in 
polytheism,  and  could  not  entirely  free  themselves  from  the  belief  that  the  gods  whom  they 
had  formerly  served  were  divinities  of  a  subordinate- class;  so  that  now  such  persons — 
since  by  partaking  of  the  flesh  of  the  victims  they  supposed  that  they  entered  again  into 
connexion  with  these  divine  beings — would  be  led  to  imagine,  that  their  former  idolatry 
was  not  wholly  incompatible  with  Christianity,  and  thus  might  easily  form  an  amalgama- 
tion of  heathenism  and  Christianity.  In  later  times,  something  of  this  kind  we  allow  took 
place,  in  the  transition  from  polytheism  to  monotheism;  bat  in  this  primitive  age,  Chris- 
tianity came  at  once  into  such  direct  conflict  on  these  particulars  with  heathenism,  that  an 
amalgamation  of  this  kind  cannot  be  thought  natural.  Whoever  had  not  wholly  re- 
nounced idolatry  would  certainly  not  have  been  received  into  the  Christian  church,  nor 
would  Paul  have  so  mildly  passed  judgment  on  such  a  weakness  of  faith.  From  such 
passages  as  Gal.  v.  20,  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  we  cannot  conclude  with  certainty  that,  among  such  as 
had  professed  Christianity,  there  were  those  who,  after  they  had  been  led  10  Christianity 
by  a  superficial  impression,  allowed  themselves  again  to  join  in  the  worship  of  idols ;  for 
Paul  might  here  have  designedly  classed  the  vices  he  named  with  idolatry,  to  indicate 
that  whoever  indulged  in  them  deserved  to  .be  ranked  wilh  idolaters.  If  we  compare 
these  passages  with  1  Cor.  v.  11,  it  will  appear  that  some  such  instances  occurred  of  a  re- 
lapse into  idolatry,  but  that  those  who  wero  thus  guilty  of  participating  in  idolatry  were 
to  be  excluded  from  all  Christian  communion. 

\  The  scrupulosity  of  the  Jews  in  this  respect  appears  in  the  Jewish-Christian  work  of 
the  Clementines  (though  on  other  points  sufficiently  liberal),  where  the  following  words 
are  ascribed  to  the  apostle  Peter:  Tpa7re^>/(  tOviiv  ova  dnoluvofiev,  tire  6!)  ovd?  ovveoriao 
8ui  avrolc  Svvufievoi  6iu  tu  unaddpruc  avrovc  fliovv.  (We  do  not  partake  at  the  table  of 
the  heathen,  for  we  are  not  able  to  eat  with  them  on  account  of  their  unclean  manner  of 
living.)     No  exception  could  be  made  in  favor  of  parents,  children,  brothers,  or  sisters. 

§  By  the  "any  one,"  nc,  1  Cor.  x.  28,  we  cannot  on  account  of  the  rulaliou  of  the  first 


232  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

Those  who  in  their  own  estimation  were  Pauline  Christians,  ridicu- 
ling a  scrupulosity  that  thus  made  daily  life  uneasy,  fell  into  an  opposite 
error.  They  had  indeed  formed  right  conceptions  of  the  Pauline 
principles  in  theory,  but  erred  in  the  application,  because  the  spirit 
of  love  and  of  wisdom  was  wanting:  They  said,  "  Idols  are  in  them- 
selves nothing  —  mere  creatures  of  the  imagination  —  hence  also  the 
eating  of  the  flesh  that  has  been  devoted  to  them  is  a  thing  in  itself  in- 
different. The  Christian  is  bound  by  no  law  in  such  outward  or  indif- 
ferent things ;  all  things  are  free  to  him  ;  "  all  things  are  lawful,"  navra 
efroTiv,  was  their  motto.  They  appealed  to  their  knowledge,  to  the 
power  which  they  possessed  as  Christians ;  yvuxng,  i^ovala,  were  their 
watchwords.  They  had  no  consideration  for  the  necessities  of  their 
weaker  brethren  ;  they  easily  seduced  many  among  them  to  follow  their 
example  from  false  shame,  that  they  might  not  be  ridiculed  as  narrow- 
minded  and  scrupulous;  such  an  one,  who  allowed  himself  to  be  induced 
by  outward  considerations  to  act  contrary  to  his  convictions,  would 
afterwards  be  disturbed  in  his  conscience.  "Thus,"  said  Paul,  "  through 
thy  knowledge  shall  the  weak  brother  perish  for  whom  Christ  died."* 
Many  went  such  lengths  in  this  pride  of  knowledge,  and  this  abuse  oi 
Christian  freedom,  that  they  scrupled  not  to  take  part  in  the  festive  en- 
tertainments, consisting  of  the  flesh  that  was  left  after  the  sacrifices  had 
been  presented,  which  the  heathen  were  wont  to  give  their  friends;  and  thus 
they  were  easily  carried  on  to  indulge  in  those  immoral  excesses,  which 
by  the  decrees  of  the  apostolic  convention  at  Jerusalem  had  been  forbid- 
den in  connexion  with  the  prohibition  of  flesh  sacrificed  to  idols.  In  fact, 
we  here  find  the  germ  of  a  one-sided  over-valuation  of  theoretic  illumina- 
tion, a  misunderstanding  of  Christian  freedom,  a  false  adiaphorism  in 
morals,  which  a  later  pseudo-Pauline  gnostic  f  tendency  carried  so  far  as 
to  justify  the  grossest  immoralities.  But  such  wickedness  certainly  can- 
not be  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  perverters  of  Christian  freedom  at  Cor- 


rlc,  v.  27,  understand  as  meant  the  same  person,  the  heathen  host, — and  it  would  be  a 
very  unlikely  thing  that  such  a  person  would  remind  his  Christian  guest,  that  he  had  set 
before  him  meat  that  had  been  offered  to  idols ;  but  we  must  rather  refer  it  to  the  weak 
Christian,  who  considered  it  to  be  his  duty  to  warn  his  unscrupulous  brother  against  par- 
taking of  such  food,  the  same  weak  Christian  whose  conscience  is  spoken  of  in  v.  29. 

°  We  might  here  make  use  of  the  words  attributed  to  Christ,  taken  from  an  apocry- 
phal gospel,  and  quoted  in  Luke  vi.  4,  by  the  Codex  Cantab.     See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  92. 

\  As  was  the  case  with  those  whom  Porphyry  mentions  in  his  book  De  Abstinentia 
Carnis,  i.  §  43,  who  in  their  mode  of  expression  agree  very  remarkably  with  the  unscrupu- 
lous persons  described  by  Paul :  Ov  yap  r//iug  fioXvvei  ru  (3p6fiara  (said  they),  uanep  ovdt 
ryv  ddlarrav  tu  fivTrapu  tuv  fievfiuruv,  nvpir.vo/iev  (like  the  Corinthian  i^ovaid^o/uev)  yup 
tuv  unclvruv,  Kaddneq  T]  ddlaaaa  tQv  vypuv  ndvruv.  'Eui>  evla[STjd£)fiev  (3pucnv, 
(6ov?m«7jii£v  rw  tov  <j>6f3ov  (j>povrj/iaTt,  del  6e  ndvd'  rj/niv  vnoTETux^ai.  (For  bread  denies 
us  no  more  than  the  dirt  of  the  streams  defiles  the  sea,  for  we  have  power  over  all  things 
even  as  the  sea  over  all  waters.  Now  if  we  were  scrupulous  as  to  meats,  we  should  be 
enslaved  to  the  spirit  of  fear ;  but  it  is  necessary  that  all  things  be  subject  to  us.)  They 
appeal  to  their  pvdog  k^ovalag. 


STATE    OF   THE   CHURCH   AT  CORINTH.  233 

inth.  Though  the  heathen  corruption  of  morals  had  infected  many 
members  of  the  Corinthian  church,  yet  they  were  far  from  wishing  to 
justify  this  immorality  on  such  grounds ;  and  had  this  been  the  case, 
Paul  would  have  spoken  with  far  greater  severity  against  such  a  pallia- 
tion of  sin.* 

The  opposition  between  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  parties  had  proba- 
bly an  influence  on  the  different  views  of  the  married  and  single  life. 
It  was  indeed  the  peculiar  effect  of  Christianity,  that  it  elevated  all  the 
moral  relations  based  in  human  nature,  in  their  pure  human  form,  to  a 
higher  significance,  so  that — after  the  original  Fountain  of  Divine  life  had 
once  assumed  humanity,  in  order,  by  revealing  himself  in  it,  to  sanctify 
and  glorify  it — the  striving  after  the  godlike  was  no  more  to  show  itself 
in  an  unearthly  direction,  overstepping  the  bounds  of  human  nature,  but 
everywhere  the  Divine  was  itself  to  be  made  human  ;  the  divine  life  was 
to  reveal  itself  in  the  forms  of  human  development.  Yet,  as  at  first, 
before  the  elevating  and  all-penetrating  influence  of  Christianity  had 

*  The  departure  to  so  great  an  extent  from  theoretical  Christian  truth  in  the  church  at 
Corinth,  has  been  admitted  by  many,  owing  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  apostle's  lan- 
guage. They  have  been  led  to  entertain  this  opinion,  from  believing  that  there  is  a  strict 
objective  connexion  between  what  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  vi.  12,  and  in  the  beginning  of  v. 
13,  and  what  he  says  of  the  words  to  di-  au/na,  and  from  supposing  that  from  v.  12,  he  had 
the  same  thought  in  view.  But  a  comparison  of  vi.  12  with  x.  23  will  show  that  Paul  at 
first  meant  only  to  speak  of  the  partaking  of  the  meat  offered  to  idols,  and  to  explain  the 
subject  more  fully.  "With  this  reference,  he  had  said  in  v.  13,  the  food  and  the  stomach, 
whose  wants  it  satisfies, 'are  both  transitory,  designed  only  for  this  earthly  existence.  On 
these  things  the  essence  of  the  Christian  calling,  which  relates  to  the  eternal  and  the  heav- 
enly, cannot  depend  ;  compare  1  Cor.  viii.  8;  Rom.  xiv.  17;  Matt.  xv.  17;  and  thus  he 
was  led  to  the  contrast,  "  but  this  form  alone  of  the  body  is  transitory."  According  to  its 
nature,  the  body  is  designed  to  be  an  imperishable  organ  devoted  to  the  Lord,  which  will 
be  awakened  again  in  a  nobler  glorified  form  for  a  higher  existence.  It  must,  therefore, 
be  even  now  withdrawn  from  the  service  of  lust,  and  be  formed  into  a  sanctified  organ  be- 
longing to  the  Lord.  It  might  be  that  there  was  floating  in  the  apostle's  mind  a  possible 
misunderstanding  of  his  words,  against  which  he  wished  to  guard,  or  his  controversy  with 
the  deniers  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  at  Corinth.  In  either  case  he  was  prompted 
to  leave  the  topic  with  which  he  began,  and  to  speak  against  those  excesses  in  the  Co- 
rinthian church  of  which  he  had  not  thought  at  first.  And  this  again  led  him  to  answer 
the  questions  proposed  to  him  respecting  the  relation  of  the  sexes.  After  that  he  returns 
again,  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  chapter,  to  the  subject  of  "  things  offered  to  idols," 
but  from  another  point ;  and  after  several  digressions  to  other  subjects,  which  may  easily 
be  explained  from  association  of  ideas,  he  began  again,  in  ch.  x.  23,  the  exposition  of 
his  sentiments  in  the  same  form  as  in  ch.  vi.  12.  "What  Billroth  has  said  in  his  Commen- 
tary, p.  83,  against  this  interpretation,  that  thus  we  lose  the  evident  contrast  and  parallel- 
ism between  the  words,  "Meats  for  the  belly,  and  the  belly  for  meats;"  and  "the  body 
not  for  fornication,  but  for  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  for  the  body,"  (tu  Qpufiara  ttj  noMp, 
kclI  t/  KOikia  toic  fipdifiaai,  and  to  61  aufia  ov  t>)  nopveia,  dX'/.d  r<p  nvpiu,  koI  6  Kvpiog  T(p 
(TGJ/iart)  appears  without  foundation.  It  is  only  assumed  that  Paul  expressed  this  con- 
trast from  a  more  general  view  of  the  subject,  and  without  limiting  it  to  a  perversion  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christian  liberty,  actually  existing  in  the  church.  What  De  Wette  has 
lately  advanced  in  his  commentary  aga'.jst  this  interpretation  has  not  altered  my  views. 
though  I  have  examined  with  pleasure  the  reasons  advanced  by  this  distinguished  critic 


234  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

manifested  itself  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  the  earnest  moral  spirit  of  the 
gospel  came  into  conflict  with  a  world  under  the  dominion  of  sinful 
lusts;  so,  for  a  short  time,  an  ascetic  tendency  averse  to  the  marriage 
union  (which  though  not  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  Christian- 
ity, might  be  called  forth  in  opposition  to  the  corruption  of  the  world) 
would  easily  make  its  appearance,  especially  since  there  was  an  expecta- 
tion of  the  speedy  passing  away  of  all  earthly  things,  antecedent  to  the 
perfect  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  conviction  that  ere 
the  kingdom  of  God  will  attain  its  perfection,  the  earthly  life  of  mankind 
must  in  all  its  forms  be  penetrated  by  the  life  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  that  all  these  forms  are  to  be  made  vehicles  of  its  manifestation — 
this  conviction  could  be  arrived  at  only  by  degrees  from  the  historical 
course  of  development.  And  as  to  what  concerns  marriage  especially, 
Christ,  certainly,  by  presenting  the  idea  of  it  as  a  moral  union — requisite 
for  the  complete  development  of  the  type  of  humanity  as  transformed 
by  the  divine  principle  of  life,  and  thus  also  for  the  realization  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  it — a  moral  union  of  the  sexes,  designed  for  their 
mutual  completement,  had  at  once  disowned  the  ascetic  contempt  of 
marriage,  which  views  it  only  on  its  sensuous  side,  and  rejects  its  true 
idea  as  realized  in  the  divine  life.  Yet  till  Christianity  had  penetrated 
more  into  the  life  of  humanity,  and  thereby  had  realized  this  idea  of 
marriage  as  a  peculiar  form  of  manifestation  belonging  to  the  kingdom 
of  God,  zeal  for  that  kingdom  might  have  viewed  marriage  as  a  relation 
tending  to  distract  the  mind,  and  to  withdraw  it  from  that  one  funda- 
mental direction.  And  besides,  though  the  Christian  view,  in  all  its 
purity  and  completeness,  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  ascetic  over- 
valuation of  celibacy,  yet  Christianity  was  equally  repugnant  to  the  an- 
cient Jewish  notion,  according  to  which  celibacy  was  considered  as  a 
disgrace  and  a  curse.  As  Christianity  made  everything  depend  on  the 
disposition^  as  it  presented  the  means  of  salvation  and  improvement  for 
all  conditions  of  human  kind,  and  a  higher  life  which  was  destined  to 
find  its  way  into  all  states  of  suffering  humanity,  and  open  a  source  of 
happiness  under  suffering ;  so  it  also  taught  that  a  single  life,  where  cir- 
cumstances rendered  it  necessary,  might  be  sanctified  and  ennobled  by 
its  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  become  a  peculiar  means  for  the 
furtherance  of  that  object.*  As  Christianity  taught  men  to  recognise 
the  realization  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  humanity  as  its  highest  moral 
attainment' — the  highest  good  to  which  everything  else  was  to  be  referred, 

*  Compare  Matt.  xix.  11,  12 ;  Life  of  Christ,  p.  330.  If  we  think  of  the  desolations 
that  took  place  at  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  the  national  migrations— how  impor- 
tant was  it  for  such  times  that  Christianity  should  allow  a  point  of  view  from  which  a  sin- 
gle life  might  be  esteemed  as  a  charism,  even  though  this  point  of  view  was  adopted  with 
ascetic  one-sidedness,.  How  important  that  that  which  was  occasioned  by  the  pressure  of 
circumstances  could  be  made  a  means  of  blessing  (by  the  education  of  the  rude  nations 
effected  by  the  monkish  orders.)  See  the  brief  but  valuable  remarks  of  a  dear  and  hon- 
ored man,  F.  v.  Meyer,  in  his  review  of  Olshausen's  Commentary. 


STATE   OF   THE   CHURCH    AT   CORINTH.  235 

so  also  it  caused  marriage  and  the  family  constitution  to  be  regard- 
ed as  something  on  the  whole  belonging  to  the  moral  office  of  humanity, 
and  to  the  representation  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  but  it  also  acknow- 
ledged cases,  in  virtue  of  a  disposition  that  subordinated  all  other  things 
to  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  which  the  individual  moral  functions  of  a  life 
devoted  to  spreading  the  kingdom  of  God  might  involve  an  exception  to 
the  general  office,  as  is  denoted  by  euvovxcojj.bg  6ia  rr]v  fiaaiXeiav  ru>v 
ovpavtiv.    (Matt.  xix.  12.) 

Thus  Christianity  had  to  maintain  a  conflict  in  the  Corinthian  church 
with  two  opposing  one-sided  tendencies  of  the  moral  sentiment, — the 
ascetic  over-valuation  of  celibacy,  and  the  tendency  which  would  enforce 
marriage  as  an  unconditional,  universal  law,  without  admitting  that 
variety  of  the  social  relations,  under  which  the  kingdom  of  God  is  capa- 
ble of  exhibiting  itself. 

The  first  tendency  certainly  did  not  proceed  from  the  Judaizing  sec- 
tion of  the  church,  for  those  apostles  to  whose  authority  the  Petrine 
party  specially  appealed,  were  married ;  and  took  their  wives  with  them 
on  their  missionary  journeys  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  5  ;  besides,  such  ascetism  was 
totally  foreign  to  their  national  customs.  From  the  Hebrew  point  of 
view  a  fruitful  marriage  appeared  as  a  peculiar  blessing  and  honor  ;  while 
unmarried  life,  or  a  childless  marriage,  was  esteemed  a  disgrace.  Though 
by  the  feeling  of  sadness  at  the  passing  away  of  the  glory  of  the  ancient 
Theocracy,  and  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  existing  religion,  and  by  the 
infusion  of  foreign  oriental  elements,  ascetic  tendencies  were  produced 
in  the  later  Judaizers ;  still  the  spirit  of  the  original  Hebrew*  system 
made  itself  felt,  and  counteracted  to  a  certain  extent  the  ascetic  tenden- 
cies, both  in  Judaism  and  Christianity.f  But  among  the  Pauline  party, 
an  over-valuation  of  the  single  life  more  or  less  prevailed,  and  in  this 
respect  they  thought  themselves  countenanced  by  the  example  of  their 
apostle.  The  Judaizers,  on  the  other  hand,  adhered  to  the  ancient 
Hebrew  principles,  as  uncompromising  opponents  of  celibacy.^ 

*  Hence  also  the  ascetic  tendency  of  the  Essenes  was  corrected  by  a  party  who  intro- 
duced marriage  into  this  sect. 

f  This  opposition  still  showed  itself  among  the  later  descendants  of  the  Judaizers  of 
this  age.  Thus  in  the  Clementines,  it  is  given  as  the  characteristic  of  a  true  prophet:  "  that  he 
regards  marriage  as  lawful,  that  he  concedes  temperate  pleasures,"  ya.fj.ov  vofiirevei,  hyupd- 
TEinv  avyxupei,  Horn.  iii.  §  16.  It  is  enjoined  on  the  overseers  of  the  church,  §  68:  "  that 
they  urge  the  marriage  not  ODly  of  young  men,  but  also  of  the  more  advanced,"  vsup  p.!) 
fiovov  KnTETreiytTuaav  Toi)f  yu/xovg,  d2.^u  nal  rutv  7tpo0e(3t]k6twv.  Epiphanius  says  of  that 
class  of  Ebionites  whom  he  describes,  that  they  reject  " celibacy,"  napdevin;  "they 
compel  and  even  at  an  unsuitable  age  they  marry  the  young  men  by  the  direction, 
forsooth,  of  their  teachers,"  dvayKu&vcri  6i  ko2  nap'  r/AiKiav  £Kyap.i£ovoi  rove  viovc  t$ 
EKCTpoivTjg  dydev  T&v  nap'  avrolg  didaoKu/MV.  Similar  things  are  found  in  the  religious 
books  of  the  Zabians  against  monkery. 

\  "When  Paul  in  1  Cor.  vii.  40,  recommends  celibacy  in  certain  cases,  he  appears  to 
have  in  view  the  Judaizers,  who  set  themselves  against  an  apostolic  authority  :  for  in  the 
words  "  and  I  think  also  that  I  have  the  spirit  of  God,"  6oku  dl  xayu  nveifia  Qtov  hx£LV 


236  PA  CX   AT   EPHESU8. 

Opposition  to  the  rigidness  of  Judaism,  and  that  false  liberalism 
which  actuated  many,  disposed  them  to  break  through  several  whole- 
some moral  restraints.  It  was  maintained,  and  with  justice,  that  Chris- 
tianity had  broken  down  the  wall  of  separation  between  the  sexes,  in 
reference  to  the  concerns  of  the  higher  life,*  and  had  freed  woman  from 
her  state  of  servitude.  But,  seduced  by  the  spirit  of  false  freedom, 
individuals  had  been  led  to  overstep  the  limits  prescribed  by  nature  and 
sound  morals,  and  recognised  and  rendered  sacred  also  by  Christianity. 
Women,  contrary  to  the  customs  prevalent  among  the  Greeks,f  appeared 
in  the  Christian  assemblies  unveiled,  and,  putting  themselves  on  an 
equality  with  the  men,  assumed  the  office  of  public  teachers. J 

The  want  of  Christian  love  was  also  evinced  by  the  disputes  that 
arose  respecting  property,  which  the  parties  were  not  willing  to  decide, 
as  had  hitherto  been  customary  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches, 
by  arbitrators  chosen  from  among  themselves ;  these  Gentile  Christians, 
boastful  of  their  freedom,  set  aside  the  scruples  which  restrained  Jewish 
Christians,  and  appealed  without  hesitation  to  a  heathen  tribunal. 

By  this  defect  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  love,  those  religious  feasts 
which  were  particularly  fitted  to  'represent  the  loving  communion  of 
Christians,  and  to  maintain  its  vigor,  lost  their  true  significance,  those 
Christian  Agapae,  which  accompanied  and  formed  a  part  of  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Last  Supper.§  These  love-feasts  were  designed  to  show  the 
power  of  Christian  fellowship  in  overcoming  all  the  differences  of  rank 
and  education  ;  rich  and  poor,  masters  and  slaves  were  to  partake  with 
one  another  of  the  same  simple  meal.  But  in  the  Corinthian  church, 
where  these  differences  were  so  strongly  marked,  this  could  not  be 
attained.  There  existed  among  the  Greeks  an  ancient  custom  of  hold- 
ing entertainments,  at  which  each  one  brought  his  food  with  him,  and 
consumed  it  alone. ||  The  Agapae  in  the  Corinthian  church  were  con- 
ducted on  the  plan  of  this  ancient  custom,  although  the  peculiar  object 
of  the  institution  was  so  different ;  consequently,  the  distinction  of  rich 
and  poor  was  rendered  peculiarly  prominent,  and  the  rich  sometimes 
indulged  in  excesses  which  desecrated  the  character  of  these  meetings. 

he  appears  to  contradict  those  who  believed  and  asserted  that  they  alone  had  the  Spirit 
of  God. 

*  Gal.  iii.  28,  "there  is  neither  male  nor  female  in  Christ  Jesus,"  ovk  b>i  dpaev  nal 
SrjXv  h  XpiarC)  'Iqoov.  On  the  contrary,  Aristotle  says,  "  woman  is  inferior  to  man," 
Xeipovj]  yvvi)  tov  dvSpuc,  Magn.  Ethic,  i.  34,  ed.  Bekker,  p.  1194. 

f  This  appears  to  me  the  most  simple  and  natural  interpretation.  "What  has  been 
said  by  some  respecting  the  difference  of  the  Roman  and  Greek  customs  of  aperto  or  operto 
capite  sacra  facere,  seems  hardly  applicable  here. 

%  See  p.  149. 

§  See  p.  165. 

|  See  Xenoph.  Memordbil.  iii.  14.  The  avfinoaia  (ptXiKu  bore  a  greater  resemblance  to 
the  Agapae.  At  these  feasts  all  that  each  brought  was  made  a  part  of  a  common  meal, 
which  the  chronicler  Johannes  Malala  mentions  as  continuing  to  be  practised  even  in  his 
time.     See  vii.  Chronograph,  e  collect.  Niebuhr.  p.  180. 


STATE    OF    THE    CHURCH    AT   CORINTH.  237 

The  Grecian  mode  of  thinking  and  culture  predominant  in  the  Co. 
rinthian  church  appeared  in  their  zeal  for  mutual  discourse  in  their  pub- 
lic assemblies,  and  for  the  cultivation  of  those  charisma  which  related  to 
oral  religious  instruction  ;*  but  it  took  a  one-sided  direction,  which 
showed  its  baneful  influence  at  a  later  period  in  the  Greek  church,  an 
aspiring  rather  after  extraordinary  power  in  discourse,  than  after  a  life 
of  eminent  practical  godliness.f  This  unpractical  tendency,  and  the 
want  of  an  all-animating  and  guiding  love,  were  also  shown  in  their 
mode  of  valuing  and  applying  the  various  kinds  of  charisma  which  rela- 
ted to  public  speaking ;  in  their  one-sided  over-valuation  of  gifts  they 
sought  for  the  more  striking  and  dazzling,  such  as  speaking  in  new 
tongues,  in  preference  to  those  that  were  more  adapted  to  general  edifi- 
cation.} 

To  which  of  the  parties  in  the  Corinthian  church  the  opponents  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  belonged  cannot  be  determined  with 
certainty,  since  we  have  no  precise  account  of  their  peculiar  tenets.  No 
other  source  of  information  is  left  open  to  us  than  that  which  .may  be 
inferred  from  the  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
which  Paul  seems  to  presuppose,  and  from  the  reasons  alleged  by  him 
in  its  favor,  and  adapted  to  the  arguments  by  which  they  assailed  it. 
But  no  safe  result  can  be  derived  from  these.  For  as  to  the  former, 
Paul  might  have  constructed  these  objections  (as  he  had  often  done  on 
other  occasions  when  developing  an  important  subject)  without  our 
being  authorized  to  infer  that  they  were  exactly  the  objections  which 
had  been  urged  by  the  impugners  of  the  doctrine.  And  as  to  the  latter, 
in  his  mode  of  establishing  the  doctrine,  he  might  have  followed  the 
connexion  with  other  Christian  truths  in  which  this  article  of  faith  pre- 
sented itself  to  his  own  mind,  without  being  influenced  by  the  peculiar 
mode  of  the  opposition  made  to  it. 

When  Paul,  for  example,  adduces  the  evidence  tor  the  truth  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  it  cannot  be  inferred  that  his  Corinthian  oppo- 
nents denied  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  for  without  regard  to  their 
mode  of  opposition,  he  might  have  adopted  this  line  of  argument,  be- 
cause to  his  own  mind  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  the  foun- 
dation of  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  the  redeemed.  He  generally  joins 
together  the  doctrines  of  the  resurrection  and  of  immortality,  and  hence 
some  may  infer  that  his  opponents  genei'ally  denied  personal  immortality. 
But  still  it  remains  a  question  whether -Paul  possessed  exact  information 
respecting  the  sentiments  of  these  persons,  or  whether  he  was  not  gov- 
erned by  the  connexion  in  which  the  truths  of  the  Christian  faith  were 
esented  to  his  own  mind,  and  by  the  fact  of  his  habitually  finding  in 


*  See  1  Cor.  i.  5. 

f  Paul  reminds  them,  in  1  Cor.  iv.  20,  that  a  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  dod  is 
shown,  not  in  high-sounding  words,  but  in  the  power  of  the  life. 
X  See  p.  142. 


238  PAUL    AT    EPHESTJS. 

the  opponents  of  the  doctrines  of  the  resurrection  those  also  of  the  doc- 
trine of  immortality,  since  both  stood  or  fell  together  in  the  Jewish  po- 
lemical theology. 

This  controversy  on  the  resurrection  has  been  attributed  to  the  ordi- 
nary opponents  of  that  doctrine  among  the  Jews,  the  Sadducees,  and  it 
has  hence  been  concluded  that  they  belonged  to  the  Judaizing  party  m 
the  Corinthian  church.  This  supposition  appears  to  be  confirmed  by  the 
circumstance  that  Paul  particularly  mentions,  as  witnesses  for  the  truth 
of  Christ's  resurrection,  Peter  and  James,  who  were  the  most  distin- 
guished authorities  of  the  Judaizing  party  ;  but  this  cannot  be  esteemed 
a  proof,  for  he  must  on  any  supposition  have  laid  special  weight  on  the 
testimony  of  the  apostles  collectively,  and  of  these  in  particular,  on  ac- 
count of  the  repeated  appearance  of  Christ  to  them  after  his  resurrection. 
Had  he  thought  of  the  Sadducees,  he  would  have  joined  issue  with  them 
on  their  peculiar  mode  of  reasoning  from  the  alleged  silence  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch ;*  just  as  Christ  opposed  them  on  this  ground.  Besides,  we 
nowhere  find  an  example  of  the  mingling  of  Sadduceeism  and  Christian- 
ity, and  as  they  present  no  points  of  connexion  with  one  another,  such 
an  amalgamation  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

A  similar  reply  must  be  made  to  those  who  imagine  that  the  contro- 
versy on  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  the  denial  of  that  of  im- 
mortality, may  be  explained  from  a  mingling  of  the  Epicurean  notions 
with  Christianity.  Yet  the  passages  in  1  Cor.  xv.  32 — 35,  might  cer- 
tainly seem  to  favor  this  view,  if  we  consider  the  practical  consequence 
deduced  by  Paul  from  that  denial  of  the  resurrection  as  a  position  laid 
down  in  the  sense  of  the  Epicureans,  if  we  find  in  that  passage  a  warn- 
ing against  their  God-forgetting  levity,  and  against  the  infectious 
example  of  the  lax  morals  which  were  the  offspring  of  their  unbelief. 
And  the  objection,  moreover,  would  not  apply  with  equal  force  to  this 
view  as  to  the  first.f  From  the  delicacy  and  mobility  of  the  Grecian 
character,  so  susceptible  of  all  kinds  of  impressions,  we  can  more  easily 
imagine  such  a  mixture  of  contradictory  mental  elements  and  such  in- 
consistency, than  from  the  stiffness  of  Jewish  nationality,  and  the  strict, 
dogmatic,  decided  nature  of  Saduceeism.  To  this  may  be  added,  that 
the  spirit  of  the  times,  so  very  much  disposed  to  Eclecticism  and  Syn- 
cretism, tended  to  bring  nearer  one  another  and  to  amalgamate  modes 
of  thinking  that,  at  a  different  period,  would  have  stood  in  most  direct 
and  violent  opposition.  Meanwhile  it  is  difficult  to  find  in  Christianity, 
whether  viewed  on  the  doctrinal  or  ethical  side,  anything  which  could 
attract  a  person  devoted  to  the  Epicurean  philosophy,  and  induce  him  to 
include  the  Christian  in  his  Syncretism,  unless  by  that  term  we  under- 
stand something  having  no  reference  to  all  the  remaining  peculiarities  of 
Christianity,  and  relating  only  to  the  idea  of  a  monotheistic,  universal 

*  An  argument  which  will  not  be  admitted  by  all.     See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  36.  n. 
f  As  Eaur  correctly  remarks  in  his  Essay  on  the  Christ-party,  p.  81. 


STATE    OF   THE   CHURCH    AT   COEINTH.  23y 

religion,  in  opposition  to  the  popular  superstitions,  and  to  certain  moral 
ideas  detached  from  their  connexion  with  the  whole  system  ;  but  this 
would  be  at  least  not  very  probable,  and  might  more  easily  happen  in  an 
age  when  Christianity  had  long  been  fermenting  in  the  general  mind, 
rather  than  on  its  first  appearance  in  the  heathen  world.  All  history, 
too,  testifies  against  this  supposition  ;  for  we  always  see  the  Epicurean 
philosophy  in  hostility  to  Christianity,  and  never  in  the  first  ages  do  we 
find  any  approximation  of  the  two  systems.  As  to  the  only  passage 
which  may  appear  to  favor  this  view,  1  Cor.  xv.  32 — 35,  it  is  not  clear 
that  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  had  really  brought 
forward  the  maxims  here  stated.  It  might  be,  that  Paul  here  intended 
only  to  characterise  that  course  of  life  which  it  appeared  to  him  must 
proceed  from  the  consistent  carrying  out  of  a  philosophy  that  denied  the 
destination  of  man  to  eternal  life  ;  for  the  idea  of  eternal  life  and  of  the 
reality  of  a  striving*  directed  to  eternal  things  were  to  him  correlative 
ideas.  And  when  persons  who  had  made  a  profession  of  Christianity 
could  fall  into  a  denial  of  eternal  life,  it  appeared  to  him  as  an  infatuation 
of  mind  proceeding  from  "  sin,"  a}iap-ia,  and  hurrying  a  man  away  to 
sinful  practice  ;  a  forgetfulness  of  God,  or  the  mark  o'"  a  state  of  estrange- 
ment from  God  in  which  a  man  knows  nothing  of  God.  It  is  much 
more  probable,  that  philosophically  educated  Gentile  Christians  were 
prejudiced  against  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  on  another  ground, 
as  in  later  times  ;  the  common  rude  conception  of  this  doctrine  which 
Paul  particularly  combated  probably  gave  rise  to  many  such  prejudices 
The  questionings  as  to  how  such  a  body  as  the  present  can  be  united  to 
the  soul  in  a  higher  condition,  and  how  a  body  which  has  sunk  into 
corruption  can  be  restored  again,  would  perfectly  suit  the  views  of  a 
Gentile  Christian,  who  had  received  a  certain  philosophical  training,  al- 
though it  cannot  be  affirmed  with  certainty,  as  has  been  before  stated, 
that  precisely  these  objections  were  brought  forward  in  the  present  in- 
stance. And  if  we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  by  the  Christ-party  is 
meant  one  that,  from  certain  expressions  of  Christ  which  they  explained 
according  to  their  subjective  proclivities,  constructed  a  peculiar  philo- 
sophical Christianity,  it  would  be  most  probable  that  such  persons  formed 
an  idea  of  a  resurrection  only  in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  explained  in  this 
manner  the  expressions  of  Christ  himself  relating  to  the  resurrection  ;  as 
we  must  in  any  case  assume  that  those  who  wished  to  be  Christians  and 
yet  denied  the  future  resurrection,  were  far  removed  from  the  true  stand- 
ard of  Christian  doctrine  in  other  respects,  and  had  indulged  in  arbitrary 
explanations  of  such  of  the  discourses  of  Christ  as  they  were  acquainted 
with. 

It  may  be  asked,  where,  and  in  what  manner  did  Paul  receive  the 
first  accounts  of  these  disturbances  in  the  Corinthian  church  ?  From 
several  expressions  of  Paul  in  his  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,*  it 

*  Between  which  and  the  Firs   Epistle,  Paul  coald  have  taken  no  journey  to  Corinth 


240  PAUL   AT   EPHESTJ3. 

appears,  that  when  he  wrote  his  admonitory  epistle,  he  had  been  there 
again,  but  only  for  a  very  short  time,  and  that  he  must  have  had  many 
painful  experiences  of  the  disorders  among  them,  though  they  might  not 
all  have  appeared  during  his  visit.* 

and  already  in  the  First  Epistle,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  there  is  a  passage  which  must 
be^most  naturally  referred  to  a  preceding  second  journey  to  that  city. 

*  I  must  now  declare  myself,  after  repeated  examinations,  more  decidedly  than  in  the 
first  edition,  in  favor  of  the  view  maintained  by  Bleek  in  his  valuable  Essay  in  the  Theo- 
hgischen  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1830,  part  hi.,  which  has  since  been  approved  by  Ruckert, 
by  Schott.  in  his  discussion  of  some  important  chronological  points  in  the  history  of  the 
apestle  Paul,  Jena,  1832,  and  by  Credner,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
by  others.  Though  some  of  the  passages  adduced  as  evidence  for  this  opinion  admit  of 
another  interpretation,  yet,  taken  altogether,  they  establish  the  second  visit  of  Paul  to  this 
church  as  an  undeniable  fact.  The  passage  in  2  Cor.  xii.  14,  compared  with  v.  13,  we 
must  naturally  understand  to  mean,  that,  as  he  had  already  stayed  twice  at  Corinth  with- 
out receiving  the  means  of  support  from  the  church,  he  was  resolved  on  his  third  visit  to 
be  no  more  a  burden  to  them  than  on  the  two  former  occasions.  If  verse  14  be  under- 
stood to  mean  (a  sense,  of  which  the  words  will  admit),  that  being  a  third  time  ready,  he  is 
intending  to  come  to  them,  we  must  in  the  first  place  supply  what  is  not  expressly  said,  that 
he  will  now  certainly  execute  this  resolution,  and  then  the  words  so  understood  do  not 
quite  suit  the  connexion.  According  to  the  most  approved  reading  of  2  Cor.  ii.  1,  the 
"again,"  ttuIlv,  must  be  referred  to  the  whole  clause  "to  come  in  heaviness,"  iv  I.vttt) 
e/.Oelv,  and  then  it  follows,  that  Paul  had  already  once  received  a  painful  impression  from 
the  Corinthians  in  a  visit  made  to  them,  which  cannot  refer  to  his  first  residence  among 
them,  and  therefore  obliges  us  to  suppose  a  second  already  past.  In  the  passage  2  Cor 
xii.  21,  which  cannot  therefore  here  be  brought  in  proof,  it  is  doubtless  possible,  and,  ac- 
cording to  the  position  of  the  words,  is  most  natural,  to  connect  the  "again,"  ndXiv,  with 
"coming,"  eXdovra;  but  it  is  also  allowable  to  suppose  that  the  "  again  "  belongs  to 
"will  humble,"  Ta-Kcivuai),  but  is  placed  first  for  emphasis.  In  this  case,  there  is  better 
ground  for  the  introduction  of  the  "again,"  which  moreover  is  not  added  to  "when  I 
come,"  in  v.  20,  as  well  as  for  the  position  of  the  whole  clause  nakiv  hWovra ;  and  the 
connexion  with  what  follows  favors  this  interpretation.  Paul  in  v.  21,  expresses  his 
anxiety  lest  God  should  humble  him  a  second  time  among  them  when  he  came.  Accord- 
ingly, we  must  thus  understand  xiii.  1,  following  the  simplest  interpretation,  though  this 
passage  may  be  otherwise  understood,  (it  is  supposed,  for  instance,  to  mean,  that  as  he  had 
already  twice  announced  his  intended  coming  to  Ca  inth,  having  now  a  third  time  repeated 
his  threatening,  he  would  certainly  execute  it) :  "lam  now  about  to  come  to  you  a  third 
time,  and  as  what  is  supported  by  two  or  three  witnesses  must  be  valid,  so  now  what  I 
have  threatened  a  second  and  a  third  time  will  certainly  be  fulfilled.  I  have  (when  I  was 
with  you  a  second  time)  before  told  those  who  had  sinned,  and  all  the  rest,  and  I  tell 
them  a  second  time  beforehand,  as  if  I  were  with  you — though  I  now  (this  now  is  opposed 
to  formerly,  since  when  present  among  them,  he  had  expressed  the  same  sentiments,)  am 
absent, — that  if  I  come  to  you  again,  I  will  not  act  towards  you  with  forbearance,"  (as 
Paul,  when  he  came  to  them  a  second  time,  still  behaved  with  forbearance,  though  he  had 
already  sufficient  cause  for  dissatisfaction  with  them.)  De  Wette,  indeed,  objects  to  this 
interpretation,  that  the  mention  of  the  first  visit  of  Paul  to  Corinth  would  be  in  this  case 
quite  superfluous.  But  if,  during  his  second  visit,  he  had  not  acted  with  severity  towards 
the  Corinthians,  but  intended  to  do  so  on  this  third  occasion,  because  they  had  not  listened 
to  his  admonitions,  he  had  certainly  good  reason  for  mentioning  his  two  first  visits  together, 
to  mark  more  distinctly  in  what  respect  the  third  would  be  distinguished  from  the  other 
two.  And  though,  during  his  first  residence  among  them,  his  experience  was  on  the 
whole  pleasing,  yet  in  this  long  period  many  thing*  must  have  happened  with  which  ho 


STATE    OF  THE   CHURCH   AT   CORINTn.  241 

Owing  to  the  breaks  in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts,  it  is  difficult  to  decide 
when  this  second  visit  to  Corinth  took  place.  If  the  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  had  not  been  addressed  at  the  same  time  to  the  churches  in 
Achaia,  we  might  suppose  that  Paul,  during  his  long  residence  at  Corinth, 
had  taken  missionary  or  visitation  journeys  throughout  other  parts  of 
Achaia,  and  that  he  then  once  more  returned  to  Corinth,  only  for  a  short 
time,  in  order  to  fetch  Aquila  for  the  journeys  he  had  in  prospect. 
It  appears  that  on  this  journey  he  was  exp6sed  to  many  dangers,  and 
that  on  his  deliverance  from  them  he  made  the  vow  mentioned  above. 
But  since  the  second  epistle  was  also  directed  to  the  churches  in  Achaia, 
this  supposition,  in  order  to  be  maintained,  must  be  so  modified,  that 
Paul  could  have  made  in  the  meantime  another  longer  journey,  and  re- 
turned back  again  to  Achaia — which  is  not  easy  to  admit.  Or  we  must 
suppose,  that  during  his  longer  residence  at  Ephesus,  of  which  we  are 
now  speaking,  he  undertook  another  missionary  journey,  and  called  in 
passing  at  Corinth  ;  or  that,  by  the  anxiety  which  the  news  brought 
from  Corinth  pxcited  in  his  mind,  he  was  induced  to  go  thither  from 
Ephesus,  but  on  account  of  circumstances  which  called  him  back  to 
Ephesus,  he  could  stay  only  a  short  time  with  the  Corinthian  church,  and 
therefore  gave  them  notice  of  a  longer  residence  among  them.  But  it 
does  not  well  agree  with  this  last  supposition,  that  Paul  distinguishes 
this  visit  as  one  that  took  place  "  by  the  way."  And  especially  if  it  took 
place  not  long  before  the  First  Epistle,  we  might  the  more  expect  allusions 
to  it  in  that.  The  communications  between  Paul  and  the  Corinthian 
church  seems  also  to  presuppose,  that  he  had  not  been  with  them  for  a 
considerable  time.  There  remains  a  third'  supposition,  that  the  visita- 
tion which  he  made  after  his  departure  from  Antioch  to  the  churches 
earlier  founded  by  him  (Acts  xviii.  23)  before  he  entered  on  a  fresh  field 
of  labor,  was  of  greater  extent  than  is  directly  stated  in  that  passage,  and 
that  it  extended  as  far  as  Achaia.  Perhaps  he  then  travelled  first  from 
Phrygia  towards  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  then  sailed  to 
Hellas.  Possibly  he  then  found  at  Corinth  Apollos  who  had  proceeded 
thither,  when  Paul  coming  from  Antioch,  passed  through  the  upper  parts 
of  Asia  (Acts  xix.  1),*  and  perhaps  joined  him  on  his  return,  and  went 
with  him  to  Ephesus. 

We  must  therefore  at  all  events  suppose  that  Paul  had  obtained  his 

could  not  be  satisfied,  but  which  he  treated  gently,  trusting  to  the  future  progress  of  their 
Christian  life.  We  may  find  in  the  First  Epistle,  a  trace  of  this  his  second  residence  at 
Corinth.  When  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  7,  Paul  says,  that  he  intended  not  now  to  see  them  by  the 
way,  upTL  and  its  position  allow  us  to  assume  a  reference  to  an  earlier  visit,  which  he 
made  only  "  by  the  way,"  h  napodu,  and  as  this  was  so  very  transient,  we  ma)'  account 
for  his  making  no  further  allusions  to  it  in  the  first  epistle. 

*  We  must  in  this  case  interpolate  Paul's  journey  to  Corinth,  Acts  xix.  1,  and 
suppose  that  since  the  author  of  the  Acts  knew  nothing  of  the  wider  extent  of  Paul's 
visitation  at  that  time,  he  represented  that  he  immediately  betook  himself  from  Upper 
Asia  to  Ephesus. 


242  PAUL    AT    EPHESUB. 

first  knowledge  of  the  alteration  for  the  worse  in  the  Corinthian  church 
by  his  own  observation.  He  could  not  indeed  have  witnessed  the  strife 
of  'the  various  parties;  for,  as  appears  from  1  Cor.  i.  11, 12,  he  heard  of 
this  first  at  Ephesus  from  the  report  of  others.  But  already  he  must 
have  had  the  painful  experience  that  in  a  church  which  once  was  inspired 
with  so  much  Christian  zeal,  their  old  vices  and  enormities  again  ap- 
peared under  a  Christian  guise.  He  admonished  them  for  their  improve- 
ment, and  threatened  to  use  severer  measures  if,  when  he  returned  from 
Ephesus,  he  should  find  that  no  improvement  had  taken  place.  At 
Ephesus  he  could  obtain  information  respecting  the  effect  of  his  last  ad- 
monitions on  the  church. 

But  he  received  worse  news  than  he  expected  of  the  corruption  of 
morals  in  the  Corinthian  church,  and  especially  of  the  vicious  conduct  of 
an  individual  who  had  maintained  unlawful  intercourse  with  his  step- 
mother. Hence,  in  an  epistle*  he  addressed  to  the  Corinthian  church, 
he  reproached  them  with  allowing  such  a  man  still  to  remain  among 
them,  and  required  them  to  renounce  all  connexion  with  so  abandoned  a 
character.f 

It  was  certainly  sufficiently  evident  what  Paul  here  intended — that 
the  Corinthians  should  not  only  exclude  from  the  meetings  of  the  church 
those  who  called  themselves  Christians,  while  they  denied  Christianity 
by  their  vicious  lives,  but  should  also  abstain  from  all  kind  of  intercourse 
with  them,  in  order  to  testify  emphatically  that  such  a  merely  outward 
profession  was  of  no  value ;  to  bring  these  persons  to  a  sense  of  their 
guilt ;  and  to  declare  practically  to  the  heathen  world  that  whoever  did 
not  exemplify  the  Christian  doctrine  in  the  conduct  of  his  life,  must  not 

*  The  epistle  in  which  Paul  wrote  this  could  not  at  any  rate  be  that  still  retained  by 
the  Armenian  church,  which  treats  of  subjects  entirely  different,  and  must  be  an  answer 
to  an  earlier  epistle  of  the  Corinthians.  This  pretended  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  by  Paul, 
and  their  answer,  bear  on  them,  as  is  now  universally  acknowledged,  the  most  undeniable 
marks  of  spuriousness.  The  account  of  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
at  Corinth,  who  were  thought  similar  to  later  deniers  of  it  among  the  Gentiles,  connected 
with  the  tales  of  Simon  Magus,  and  the  account  of  the  Jewish  (bunders  of  sects,  by  Hege- 
sippus,  gave  an  idle  monk  the  inducement  to  put  together  these  fragments  of  Pauline 
phrases.  If  they  were  quoted  in  a  genuine  homily  of  Gregory  Quriorfc,  they  were  per- 
haps in  existence  in  the  third  century,  but  this  address  of  Gregory  to  the  newly  baptized 
may  itself  be  spurious. 

f  It  may  be  asked  whether  Paul  in  the  lost  epistle  treated  merely  of  the  case  which 
was  immediately  under  consideration  in  the  Corinthian  church — only  of  abstaining  from 
intercourse  with  iropvoi^ — or  whether  he  also  spoke  definitely  of  such  as  had  fallen  into 
other  notorious  vices — the  covetous,  who  had  no  regard  for  the  property  of  others ;  the 
slanderous;  those  addicted  to  drinking;  those  who  took  any  part  whatever  in  the  worship 
of  idols.  The  manner  in  which  he  expresses  himself  in  1  Cor.  v.  9-11  might  signify, 
though  not  decisively,  that  since  he  was  obliged  to  guard  his  words  against  misapprehen- 
sion, he  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  give  a  wider  application  to  the  principles 
they  expressed,  which  he  certainly  had  from  the  beginning  in  his  mind,  yet  had  not  occa- 
sion to  mention  in  his  first  epistle,  which  bore  on  one  particular  point.  At  all  events,  it  ;« 
important  to  know  how  far  Paul  extended  the  strictness  of  church  discipline. 


FIRST   EPISTLE   TO   THE   CORINTHIANS.  24S 

flatter  himself  that  he  was  a  Christian.  But  since  Paul  had  not  thought 
it  necessary  to  add  that  he  spoke  only  of  the  vicious  in  the  church,  and 
not  of  persons  in  general  who  lived  in  such  vices,  the  Corinthians  did 
not  think  of  the  limitation  which  the  thing  itself  might  easily  have  sua* 
gested,  and  thus  they  were  thrown  into  perplexity  how  to  comply  with 
such  an  injunction  ;  for  how  could  they,  while  living  in  the  midst  of  an 
evil  world,  renounce  all  intercourse  with  the  vicious  ?  They  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  apostle,  in  which  they  stated 'their  perplexity,  and  pro- 
posed several  other  questions  on  doubtful  cases  in  the  concerns  of  the 
church. 

By  means  of  this  letter,  and  the  messengers  who  brought  it,  he  ob- 
tained a  more  complete  knowledge  of  the  concerns  and  state  of  the 
church.  In  the  communication  which  contained  his  reply  to  the  ques- 
tions proposed,  he  poured  forth  his  whole  heart,  full  of  paternal  love  to 
the  church,  and  entered  minutely  into  all  the  necessities  of  their  situa- 
tion. This  Epistle,  a  master-piece  of  apostolic  wisdom  in  church  govern- 
ment, contains  much  of  importance  respecting  the  new  form  given  by 
Christianity  to  all  the  relations  of  life.  It  Avas  probably  conveyed  by  the 
messengers  on  their  return  to  Corinth. 

Paul  condemned  in  an  equal  degree  all  party  feeling  in  the  Corin- 
thian church.  His  salutation,  in  verse  2,  was  opposed  to  it,  and  suited 
to  remind  all  that  they  equally  belonged  to  one  church,  which  was  com- 
posed of  all  the  faithful  and  redeemed.  He  taught  them  that  Christ  was 
their  sole  Head,  to  whom  they  must  all  adhere ;  that  human  laborers 
were  to  be  considered  only  as  instruments,  by  whom  God  worked  ac- 
cording to  their  peculiar  adaptabilities,  in  order  to  promote  in  the  hearts 
of  their  fellow-men  that  result  which  all  things  were  appointed  to  serve. 
They  ought  to  be  far  from  venturing  to  boast  that  they  had  this  or  that 
man  for  their  teacher ;  for  such  boasting,  by  which  they  owned  them- 
selves dependent  on  man,  was  rather  a  denial  of  their  being  Christians ; 
for  if  they  only,  as  became  Christians,  referred  everything  to  Christ,  to 
whom  they  were  indebted  for  communion  with  God,  they  might  view 
all  things  as  designed  to  serve  them,  and  as  belonging  to  them ;  those 
sublime  expressions  in  1  Cor.  iii.  21  show  how  the  truest  spiritual  free- 
dom and  the  highest  elevation  of  soul  are  the  offspring  of  Christian  hu- 
mility. This  general  truth  in  reference  to  the  manner  in  which  all 
Christian  teachers  (each  according  to  his  peculiar  qualifications)  were  to 
be  estimated  and  made  use  of,  he  applies  particularly  to  his  relation  to 
Apollos ;  of  whom  he  could  speak  most  reservedly  and  unsuspectingly, 
since  he  was  a  man  with  whom  he  stood  in  the  closest  connexion,  and 
who  had  adopted  his  own  peculiar  form  of  doctrine.  To  those  persons 
who  could  not  find  in  his  simple  preaching  the  wisdom  which  they 
sought  after,  and  preferred  Apollos  as  a  teacher  more  according  to  their 
Grecian  taste,*  he  said  that  it  was  wrong  on  their  part  to  regret  the 

*  "We  hnve  already  spoken  of  the  reference  of  this  whole  section,  1  Cor.  i.  1-18.     "W« 


244  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

absence  of  such  wisdom  in  his  preaching,  for  the  fountain  of  all  genuine 
wisdom,  the  wisdom  of  God,  was  not  to  be  found  in  any  scheme  of  phil- 
osophy, but  only  in  the  doctrine  of  the  crucified  Jesus,  the  Saviour  of 
the  world,  which  he  had  made  the  central  point  of  his  preaching ;  but 
this  divine  wisdom  could  only  be  found  and  understood  by  a  disposition 
that  was  susceptible  of  what  was  divine.  He  had  never  yet  been  able 
to  lead  them  by  his  discourses  to  perceive  in  the  simple  doctrine  of  the 
gospel  (which  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  was  foolishness)  the  depths  of 
divine  wisdom,  because  an  ungodly  disposition  predominated  in  their 
minds,  of  which  these  party  strifes  were  an  evident  sign.  He  gave  the 
Corinthians  a  rule  by  which  they  might  pass  a  judgment  on  all  teachers 
of  Christianity.  Jesus  the  Messiah  was  the  immovable  foundation  ;  in 
him  lay  everything  which  pertains  to  such  a  foundation.  He  was  the 
Redeemer,  and  the  Lord  to  whom  all  must  yield  themselves  to  have 
their  whole  lives  moulded  by  him.  And  here  we  must  bear  in  mind 
how  Jesus  Christ  was  always  presented  to  the  religious  consciousness  of 
the  apostle  as  the  One  crucified,  risen,  ascended  to  heaven,  and  invested 
with  divine  sovereignty.  Nor  does  Paul  think  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
apart  from  his  person,  but  regards  it  as  that  by  which  we  come  into  liv- 
ing communion  with  him,  by  which  Christ  himself  enters  into  our  hearts. 
This  was  the  immovable  foundation  on  which  all  Christians,  collectively, 
or  singly,  must  rest.  The  building  on  this  or  on  another  foundation 
constituted  the  difference,  in  Paul's  judgment,  between  the  true  and  the 
false  teachers  of  Christianity.  Whoever  proceeded  from  this  foundation 
would  himself  attain  to  salvation,  and  would  lead  others  to  it. 

But  in  the  structure  of  doctrine  which  was  raised  on  this  foundation, 
the  divine  might  more  or  less  be  mixed  with  the  human,  and  so  far  be 
deteriorated.  The  complete  purifying  process,  the  separation  of  the  di- 
vine and  the  human,  would  be  left  to  the  last  judgment.  Many  a  one 
who  had  attached  too  great  value  to  the  human,  would  see  the  work  de- 
stroyed which  he  had  constructed,  though  the  foundation  on  which  it 
rested  would  remain  for  himself  and  others  :  such  a  one  would  be  saved 
after  many  severe  trials,  which  he  must  undergo  for  purification  from 
the  alloy  of  self ;  1  Cor.  iii.  11-15.*     But  from  the  teachers  who  adhered 


need  not  enter  more  at  large  into  the  dispute  respecting  the  meaning  proposed  by  Eichorn 
and  others,  that  Paul  here  directed  his  argumentation  against  Grecian  Sophists,  who  had 
made  an  entrance  into  the  church,  and  threatened  to  seduce  many  into  unbelief. 

*  Since  the  whole  passage  which  speaks  of  fire,  of  the  building  constructed  of  varioua 
materials,  some  fire-proof  and  others  destructible  by  fire,  and  of  being  saved  as  from  the 
midst  of  the  fire,  is  composed  of  images,  and  is  figurative  throughout, — it  is  very  illogical, 
as  Origen  has  justly  remarked,  arbitrarily  to  detach  from  the  rest,  and  take  in  a  literal 
sense  a  single  trait  in  the  picture,  as  that  of  fire.  Nor  let  any  one  say  that  the  idea  of  such 
a  judgment  in  the  historical  development  is  un- Pauline.  The  idea  of  such  a  judgment 
connected  with  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  and  accompanying  its  operations,  pervades 
the  whole  New  Testament, — by  which  indeed,  a  final  judgment  of  the  world,  to  which, 
this  is  only  preparative,  is  not  excluded. 


THE   FIRST  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS.  24A 

to  the  unchangeable  foundation  of  God's  kingdom,  and  built  upon  it, 
either  with  better  or  worse  materials,  Paul  distinguishes  those  of  whom 
he  says,  that  they  destroy  the  Temple  of  God  itself  in  believers,  and  are 
guilty  of  peculiar  sacrilege  ;  against  such  he  denounced  the  most  awful 
punishment,  "  If  any  man  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God  de- 
stroy;"  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  where  Paul  treats  of  eating  meat  offered 
to  idols,  he  does  not,  in  order  to  impress  tiie  Gentile  Christians  with 
their  obligations  to  abstain  from  all  such  food,  appeal  to  the  decision  of 
the  apostolic  convention  at  Jerusalem,  any  more  than  he  opposed  the 
authority  of  that  decision  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  who  wished  to  com- 
pel the  Gentiles  to  be  circumcised.  This  is  no  argument  against  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  decision,  since  Paul's  failure  to  refer  to  it  may  be  explained 
from  his  peculiar  method ;  he  attached  little  value  to  such  decisions,  he 
was  no  friend  to  literal  and  positive  command,  and  so  did  not  found  his 
arguments  upon  them,  but  rather  on  the  inward  law  in  the  hearts  of  be- 
lievers, on  what  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  requires.  As  in  the  instance  of 
those  who  wished  to  impose  the  law  of  circumcision  on  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, instead  of  appealing  to  an  outward  authority,  he  pointed  out  the 
internal  contrariety  of  their  conduct  to  the  peculiar  and  fundamental 
principles  of  the  gospel ;  so  on  this  point,  he  opposed  to  the  abuse  of 
Christian  freedom  the  law  of  love  which  was  inseparable  from  the  gos- 
pel. Besides,  it  appears  that,  though  the  authority  of  that  decision  was 
held  sacred  in  Palestine,  Acts  xxi.  25,  yet  beyond  these  limits  it  seems 
to  have  been  little  regarded.  Since  that  decision  rested  on  mutual  con- 
cessions, it  followed  that  if  one  of  the  parties  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
failed  to  fulfil  the  condition,  if  they  would  not  acknowledge  the  uncir 
cumcised  as  their  heathen  brethren,  then,  on  the  other  side,  the  obliga 
tion  ceased  to  bind  the  Gentile  Christians,  who,by  the  observance  of  that 
decision,  would  have  made  an  approach  to  the  Jewish  Christians.  At  a 
later  period,  after  the  settlement  of  the  opposition  between  these  two 
hostile  tendencies  could  no  longer  be  accomplished,  but  a  Jewish  element 
had  gained  entrance  into  the  church  itself  in  an  altered  form,  this  decision 
would,  perhaps,  again  acquire  the  strict  power  of  law. 

Paul  did  not  dispute  the  position  which  the  free-thinking  Christians 
of  Corinth  were  always  contending  for,  that  no  laws  could  be  laid  down 
about  outward  things  that  were  in  themselves  indifferent ;  he  did  not 
even  exact  their  deference  to  the  apostolic  decision,  by  which  such  food 
was  absolutely  forbidden  ;  but  he  shows  them  from  the  spirit  of  the  gos- 
pel, that  what  is  in  itself  lawful,  may,  under  special  circumstances,  cease 
to  be  so,  so  far  as  it  contravenes  the  law  of  love,  the  obligation  of  Chris- 
tians to  act  on  all  occasions  so  that  the  salvation  of  others  may  be  most 
promoted,  and  the  glory  of  God  be  subserved.  He  points  out  that  they 
even  denied  their  own  Christian  freedom,  since  in  another  way  they 
brought  themselves  into  subjection  to  outward  things,  which  they  ought 


246  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

to  have  used  with  freedom  in  the  spirit  of  love,  according  as  circunv 
stances  might  vary.* 

In  reference  to  the  question  proposed  to  him  respecting  a  single  life, 
he  took  a  middle  course  between  the  two  contending  parties,  those  who 
entirely  condemned  a  single  life,  and  those  who  wished  to  prescribe  it  for 
all  persons  as  something  essential  to  Christian  perfection.  But  in  order 
rightly  to  understand  what  he  says  on  this  subject,in  connexion  with  this 
period  of  the  development  of  God's  kingdom  and  with  Paul's  peculiar 
point  of  view,  and  to  form  a  correct  judgment  according  to  the  laws  of 
Christian  ethics,  we  must  attend  to  the  following  considerations.  For 
the  time  being,  the  chief  object  of  desire  was  to  spread  the  gospel  as 
quickly  and  as  widely  as  possible,  and  the  appropriation  by  Christianity 
of  all  human  relations  was,  on  the  contrary,  but  little  thought  of.  The 
soul  of  Paul  was  animated  to  an  extraordinary  degree  with  the  one  glow- 
ing desire  to  carry  to  all  men  quickly  the  message  of  salvation.  His 
single  life,  which  allowed  him  to  extend  his  ministry  in  all  directions 
without  delay  and  to  gain  his  own  livelihood  without  hindrance,  was  an 
important  means  for  the  execution  of  his  plans.  It  made  him,  in  fact, 
a  "  eunuch  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven's  sake,"  evvovxiofidg  dta  r>qv  (3aoi- 
Xeiav  t&v  ovpav&v,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  Lord.  As  he  was 
withheld  by  nothing  in  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  but  lived  wholly 
for  the  cause  of  the  Lord,  it  appeared  to  him  the  happiest  condition  ; 
and  looking  at  it  from  the  stand-point  of  his  own  peculiar  endowments 
and  vocation,  he  wished  that  all  men  could  share  this  glorious  and  happy 
life  dedicated  to  the  Lord.  In  addition  to  this,  he  had  not  yet  found 
realised  his  idea  of  Christian  wedlock  in  which  man  and  wife  are  both 
dedicated  to  the  Lord  alone,  and  are  joined  together  in  a  life  animated 
and  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  From  this  proceeded  what  he 
says  of  the  obstacles  presented  by  the  married  state  for  fulfilling  the  du- 
ties of  the  Christian  life.  He  has  evidently  in  his  eye  not  a  union,  such 
as  would  correspond  to  the  idea  represented  by  himself  in  this  epistle 
and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  in  which  both  parties  were  as  one 
in  fellowship  with  the  Lord  and  viewed  and  treated  everything  in  the 
light  of  this  fellowship;  but  a  state  of  the  soul  divided  between  a  regard 
to  the  Lord  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  world  and  the  wredded  associate 
on  the  other.  And  thus  what  he  says  of  the  injurious  effects  of  marriage 
is  derived  from  its  want  of  correspondence  to  the  Christian  idea  of  mar- 
riage. And  he  might  so  much  the  less  think  of  the  extension  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  by  the  natural  propagation  of  the  human  race,  since 
he  expected  the  second  advent  and  the  end  of  the  world  as  events  near 
at  hand, — a  view  of  things  necessarily  arising  from  the  first  stage  of  the 


*  1  Cor.  vi.  12.  "All  things  are  lawful  for  me;  but  I  will  not  be  brought  under  the 
power  of  any,"  ndvra  fiot  e^ehtlv  dXV  ovk  iyti  tZovoiaadrjoo/nai  vno  tivo£.  If  every- 
thing is  lawful  for  me,  yet  I  must  not  allow  myself  to  be  governed  by  external  things,  aa 
if,  because  I  can  use  them,  I  must  necessarily  use  them.  " 


FIRST   EPISTLE    TO    THE    CORINTHIANS.  247 

development  of  God's  kingdom.  Bnt  if  he  was  disposed  on  this  side  to 
recommend  a  single  life,  it  only  makes  his  pastoral  wisdom  and  consider- 
ation more  remarkable  in  deeming  it  needful  to  limit  this  recommenda- 
tion, and  in  warning  against  the  injurious  effects  of  a  forced  celibacy  not 
supported  by  peculiar  endowments,  amidst  the  threatening  contagion  of 
moral  corruption  in  such  a  church  as  the  Corinthian.  He  placed  the  es- 
sence of  Christian  perfection  not  in  celibacy,  nor  in  the  outward  denial 
of  earthly  things  ;  but  in  that  renunciation  jof  the  world  which  has  its 
seat  in  the  disposition,  which  would  make  the  married  and  the  rich, 
as  well  as  the  unmarried  and  the  poor,  ready  to  sacrifice  everything 
which  the  exigencies  of  the  times  might  demand  ;  to  suffer  the  loss  of 
all  things,  however  dear  to  their  hearts,  for  the  sake  of  the  gospel ;  1 
Cor.  vii.  29,  30. 

In  speaking  of  the  various  relations  of  life  in  which  men  might  be 
placed  at  the  time  of  their  conversion,  Paul  lays  down  as  a  rule,  that 
that  event  should  produce  no  change  in  this  respect.  Christianity  did 
not  violently  dissolve  the  relations  in  which  a  man  found  himself  placed 
by  birth,  education,  and  the  leading  of  divine  Providence,  but  taught 
him  to  act  in  them  from  a  new  point  of  view,  and  with  a  new  dispo- 
sition. It  effected  no  abrupt  revolutions,  but  gradually,  by  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  working  from  within,  made  all  things  new.  The  Apostle 
applies  this  especially  to  the  case  of  slaves,  which  it  was  more  needful 
to  consider,  because  from  the  beginning  that  gospel  which  was  preached 
to  the  poor  found  much  acceptance  among  this  class,  and  the  knowl- 
edge imparted  to  them  by  Christianity  of  the  common  dignity  and  rights 
of  all  men,  might  easily  have  excited  them  to  throw  off  their  earthly 
yoke.  Here  also,  Christianity,  in  order  not  to  mingle  worldly  and  spir- 
itual things  together,  and  not  to  miss  its  main  object,  the  salvation  of 
the  soul,  did  not  presume  to  effect  by  force  a  sudden  revolution  in  their 
condition  ;  it  operated  only  on  the  mind  and  disposition,  a  process  by 
which  civil  relations  were  designed  to  be,  and  must  necessarily  be  at  a 
later  day,  reformed.  To  slaves  the  gospel  presented  a  higher  life,  which 
exalted  them  above  the  restraints  of  their  earthly  relation ;  and  though 
masters  were  not  required  by  the  apostles  to  give  their  slaves  freedom, 
since  it  was  foreign  to  their  ministry  to  interfere  with  the  arrangement 
of  civil  relations,  yet  Christianity  imparted  to  masters  such  a  knowledge 
of  their  duties  to  their  slaves,  and  such  dispositions  towards  them, 
and  taught  them  to  recognise  as  brethren  the  Christians  among  their 
slaves,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  their  relation  to  them  quite  a  differ- 
ent thing. 

Paul,  therefore,  when  he  touches  on  this  relation,  tells  the  slave, 
that  though  by  the  arrangement  of  Providence  he  was  debarred  from 
the  enjoyment  of  outward  freedom,  he  should  not  be  troubled,  but  re- 
joice that  the  Lord  had  bestowed  upon  him  true  inward  freedom.  But 
while  he  considers  the  latter  as  the  only  true  freedom,  in  the  possession 
of  which  man  may  be  free  under  all  outward  restraints,  and  apart  from 


*48  PAUL  AT  EPHESUS. 

which  no  true  freedom  can  exist,  he  is  very  far  from  overlooking  the 
subordinate  worth  of  civil  freedom,  for  he  says  to  the  slave,  to  whom  he 
hadannounced  the  true,  the  spiritual  freedom,  "but  if  thou  mayst  be 
free,  use  it  rather,"  1  Cor.  vii.  21  ;*  which  implies  that  the  apostle  viewed 
the  state  of  freedom  as  more  corresponding  to  the  Christian  calling,  and 
that  Christianity,  when  it  so  far  gained  the  ascendency  as  to  form  anew 
the  social  relations  of  mankind,  would  bring  about  this  change  of  state, 
which  he  declares  to  be  an  object  of  preference.! 

*  The  later  ascetic  spirit  forms  a  striking  contrast  on  this  point  to  the  spirit  of  primi- 
tive Christianity.  Although,  in  a  grammatical  view,  it  is  most  natural  to  supply  the 
klcvdepos  yEveaBat  which  immediately  precedes,  or  "freedom,"  tfcvOepla,  borrowed  from 
it,  yet  the  later  Fathers  have  not  thus  understood  it,  because  the  worth  of  civil  freedom 
appeared  to  them  not  so  great,  but  they  took  the  apostle's  meaning  to  be  exactly  opposite: 
"  use  rather  slavery,"  ftdXlov  XPV<?<U  ?y  dovleia.  What  De  Wette  has  lately  urged 
against  our  interpretation,  does  not  appear  to  me  convincing.  The  "if  also,"  el  kclI  (he 
thinks)  is  against  it ;  but  it  suits  very  well.  The  apostle  says,  "If  called,  being  a  slave, 
to  Christianity,  thou  shouldst  be  content.  Christian  f.-eedom  will  not  be  injured  by  slavery 
— but  yet,  if  thou  canst  be  free  (as  a  still  additional  good,  which  if  thou  dost  not  attain,  be 
satisfied  without  it ;  but  which,  if  offered  to  thee,  is  net  to  be  despised)  therefore  make 
use  of  this  opportunity  of  becoming  free,  rather  than  by  neglecting  it  to  remain  a  slave. 
Moreover,  "to  use  sla very," xpr/adai  ry  &ov7.ei<?, would  be  a  veiy  singular  mode  of  expression, 
since  the  apostle  might  have  said  much  more  simply,  "  Remain  a  slave."  But  the  expres- 
sion nul'Xov  xpyoat  might  be  very  well  used  when  speaking  of  an  opportunity  of  obtain- 
ing freedom ;  and  if  Paul  wished  to  say  that  in  case  any  one  could  obtain  his  freedom  he 
should  yet  remain  a  slave,  he  would  have  suggested  a  more  appropriate  reason,  for  in  what 
he  does  say  we  find  absolutely  nothing  that  can  serve  as  an  argument  for  it.  The  fact 
that  the  slave  as  a  Christian  shares  true  freedom  with  his  fellow-Christians,  and  that  he 
who  is  free  partakes  in  this  bond-service  of  Christ  with  the  slave  who  is  a  Christian,  con- 
tains no  reason  why  a  slave,  when  his  freedom  is  offered  him,  should  not  accept  it.  Nor 
can  this  be  inferred  from  v.  20,  for  in  that  nothing  more  is  said  than  that  no  one  should 
arbitrarily  withdraw  from  the  relations  of  life  in  which  he  finds  himself;  but  it  does  not 
follow  from  this  that  when  an  opportunity  is  presented  by  God  of  entering  into  more  favor- 
able earthly  relations,  a  man  is  not  to  embrace  it.  Such  an  exhortation,  without  any  fur- 
ther confirmation  of  it,  would  be  only  an  arbitrary  dictation  on  Paul's  part.  But  if  he  said, 
"Whoever  can  be  free,  let  him  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity,"  there  was  no  occasion  to 
support  it  by  any  further  reason.  He  only  guarded  himself  against  a  misapprehension 
which  might  have  arisen  from  too  broad  an  application  of  the  principle  he  had  laid  down. 

The  connexion  with  v.  22  is  not  against  it,  if  we  recollect,  that  the  clause  beginning 
with  dXXu  is  only  a  secondary  or  qualifying  assertion,  which  certainly  does  not  belong  to  the 
leading  thought,  a  mode  of  construction  similar  to  what  we  find  elsewhere  in  Paul's  writings. 

f  To  this  also  the  words  in  v.  23  may  relate.  "Ye  are  bought  with  a  price  (ye  are 
made  free  from  the  dominion  of  Satan  and  sin),  become  not  the  slaves  of  men."  Thus  it 
would  be  understood  by  many.  Christians  ought  not  voluntarily,  merely  to  escape  from 
some  earthly  trouble,  to  put  themselves  in  a  condition  which  is  not  suited  to  their  Chris- 
tian calling.  But  since  the  apostle  previously,  when  speaking  of  sucli  relations  as  could 
only  concern  individuals  in  the  church,  used  the  singular,  but  now  changed  his  style  to 
the  plural,  it  is  hence  probable,  that  he  is  speaking  of  a  relation  of  a  general  kind,  that  is, 
giving  an  exhortation  which  would  apply  to  all  the  Corinthians,— an  exhortation  in- 
deed, which  is-  not  so  closely  connected  with  what  is  said  in  v.  22,  but  which  he 
might  easily  have  been  led  to  make  from  the  idea  of  a  Sovloc;  Xpt&rov,  so  familiar 
and  interesting  to  his  mind,  an  idea  that  would  equally  apply  to  both  bond  and  free; 
"Refuse  not  this  true  freedom  which  belongs  to  you  as  the  bondsmen  of  Christ;" 


PIES'!    EPISTLE   TO   THE    CORINTHIANS.  249 

The  Corinthian  church  had  probably  requested  that  Apollos  *  might 
visit  them  again,  and  Paul  acknowledged  him  as  a  faithful  teacher,  who 
had  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  faith  which  he  had  laid,  who  had 
watered  the  field  that  he  had  planted.  He  was  far  from  opposing  this 
request ;  he  even  requested  Apollos  to  comply  with  it,  but  Apollos  was 
resolved  not  to  visit  Corinth  immediately.  The  importance  attached  to 
his  person,  and  the  efforts  that  had  been  made  to  place  him  at  the  head 
of  a  party,  perhaps  led  him  to  this  determination. 

Paul  wrote  our  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  about  the  time  of  the 
Jewish  Passover,  as  appears  from  the  allusion  in  v.  7.f  He  had  then  the 
intention  of  staying  at  Ephesus  till  Pentecost ;  he  informed  them  that 
many  opportunities  offered  for  publishing  the  gospel,  but  that  he  had 
also  many  enemies  to  contend  with.  He  spoke  of  his  being  in  daily 
peril  of  losing  his  life ;  1  Cor.  xv.  30.J 

At  the  time  of  his  writing  this  Epistle  to  Corinth,  he  had  formed  an 
extensive  plan  for  his  future  labors.  As  during  his  stay  of  several 
years  in  Achaia  and  at  Ephesus,  he  had  laid  a  sufficient  foundation  for 
the  extension  of  the  Christian  church  among  the  nations  who  used  the 
Greek  language,  he  now  wished  to  transfer  his  ministry  to  the  West ; 
and  as  it  was  his  fundamental  principle  to  make  those  regions  the  scene 
of  his  activity  where  no  one  had  labored  before  him,  he  wished  to  visit 

— an  exhortation  which  was  adapted  in  many  respects  to  the  condition  of  the  Corinthian 
church  ;  and  this  warning  against  a  servitude  totally  incompatible  with  being  a  servant 
(or  bondsman)  of  Christ,  (which  could  not  be  asserted  of  a  state  of  outward  servitude,  or 
slavery,  simply  as  such,)  this  warning  would  be  a  very  suitable  conclusion  to  the  whole 
train  of  thought  on  inward  and  outward  freedom.  It-was  needless  for  him  to  notice  the 
case  of  a  person  selling  himself  for  a  slave,  since  it  was  one  that  could  hardly  occur  among 
Christians.  Verse  24  is  rather  for,  than  against,  this  interpretation ;  for  since  v.  23  does 
not  refer  to  outward  relations,  he  once  more  repeats  the  injunction  respecting  them. 

*  See  1  Cor.  xvi.  12.  f  See  p.  159. 

\  Schrader  infers  from  the  words  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  8,  that  Paul  could  not  have  written 
this  epistle  at  the  close  of  his  long  residence  at  Ephesus,  but  at  the  beginning  of  another 
shorter  stay  there  ;  for  otherwise  he  must  have  said,  "  I  will  tarry  at  Ephesus  still," 
enifieviJ  (51  hv  'E0eCT<j  fn,  and  could  not  have  hoped  to  effect  that  in  a  few  weeks  for  the 
spread  of  the  gospel,  and  the  vanquishing  of  false  teachers,  which  he  could  not  accomplish 
even  after  several  years.  But  we  do  not  see  why  Paul,  merely  having  the  future  in  his 
eye,  and  not  reflecting  on  the  past,  might  not  have  left  out  the  "still,"  or  "yet  longer,"  eti, 
as  similar  omissions  frequently  occur  in  epistolary  writing ;  and  even  if  Paul  in  the  course 
of  a  long  time  had  already  effected  much  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  still  he  could  say, 
Bince  the  sphere  of  his  labors  in  Lesser  Asia  was  continually  extending,  that  "a  great  and 
effectual  door" was  opened  for  publishing  the  gospel.  But  the  "adversaries,"  dvTiicelfievot, 
in  this  passage,  which  relates  to  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  are  certainly  not  false 
teachers,  but  open  adversaries  of  Christianity.  As  the  opportunities  for  making  known 
the  gospel  were  manifold,  so  also  its  enemies  were  mauy.  This,  therefore,  does  not  con- 
tradict the  preceding  longer  residence  of  the  apostle,  but  rather  confirms  it ;  for  the  most 
violent  attacks  on  the  preachers  of  the  gospel,  if  they  did  not  proceed  from  the  Jews, 
would  first  arise,  when,  after  long-continued  labors,  effects  had  beet,  produced  which 
threatened  tc  injure  the  interests  of  many  whose  gains  were  derived  from  idolatrous 
practices. 


250  PAUL  AT  EPHESUS. 

Rome,  the  metropolis  of  the  world,  where  a  church  had  long  since  beec 
established,  on  his  way  to  Spain,*  and  then  to  commence  the  publication 
of  the  gospel  at  the  extremity  of  Western  Europe.  But  before  putting 
this  plan  into  execution,  he  wished  to  obtain  a  munificent  collection  in 
the  churches  of  the  Gentile  Christians  for  their  poor  believing  brethren 
at  Jerusalem,  and  to  carry  the  amount  himself  to  Jerusalem  accompanied 
by  some  members  of  the  churches.  Already  some  time  before  he  de- 
spatched this  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  he  had  sent  Timothy  and  some 
others  to  Macedonia  and  Achaia  to  forward  this  collection,  and  to  coun- 
teract the  disturbing  influences  in  the  Corinthian  church.f  He  hoped  to 
receive  through  him  an  account  of  the  impression  which  his  epistle  had 
made.  But  it  is  strange  that  in  the  Second  Epistle  of  Paul  i  o  the  Corin- 
thians we  can  find  no  intimation  that  Timothy  had  visited  them  in  the 
interval, — nothing  that  relates  to  the  maimer  in  which  he  vas  received 
by  the  church.  This  may  be  explained  in  two  ways ;  eacL  has  its  diffi- 
culties, and  we  do  not  believe  that  complete  certainty  can  be  arrived  at. 
It  might  have  happened  that  Timothy  had  been  prevented,  from  coming 
to  Corinth, J  and  so  Paul  was  induced,  as  Timothy  had  rf  turned  to  him 

*  Rom.  xv.  24,  28.  Dr.  Baur,  in  his  Essay  on  the  Object  and  Occasion  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  in  the  Tulinger  Zeitschrift  fi'tr  Theologie,  1836,  purt  iii.  p.  154,  has 
attempted  to  show  that  Paul  could  not  have  written  these  words.  He  minks  that  he  dis- 
covers in  them  the  marks  of  another  hand,  of  which  in  fact  no  trace  whaeever  can  be  found, 
— all  appears  wholly  Pauline.  It  might  indeed  seem  strange,  that  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  had  not  yet  visited  the  metropolis  of  the  Gentile  world.  Accordingly,  he  gives 
an  account  of  the  causes  which  had  hitherto  prevented  him,  and  expresses  his  earnest  desire 
to  become  personally  acquainted  with  the  church  there.  Since  it  was  most  important, 
first  of  all,  to  lay'a  foundation  everywhere  for  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  on  which  tho 
superstructure  might  afterwards  be  easily  raised,  so  it  was  his  maxim — the  same  which 
he  expresses  in  2  Cor.  x.  16,  and  which  we  see  him  always  acting  upon — to  labor  only  in 
those  regions  where  no  one  before  had  published  the  gospel.  But  among  the  Gentiles  at 
Rome  a  church  had  been  long  founded,  and  hence  he  could  not  be  justified  on  his  own 
principles  in  leaving  a  field  of  labor  in  which  there  was  still  so  much  to  be  done,  to  visit 
a  church  that  had  been  long  established,  and  was  in  a  state  of  progressive  development. 
The  difficulties  which  Baur  finds  in  this  passage  are  only  created  by  a  false  interpretation. 

f  1  Cor.  iv.  17.  The  manner  in  which  Paul  mentions  Timothy  both  here  and  in  xvi. 
10,  plainly  shows  that  he  was  not  the  bearer  of  this  epistle,  and  the  latter  passage  makes 
it  not  improbable  that  Paul  expected  he  would  arrive  at  Corinth  after  his  epistle,  which 
would  naturally  happen  though  Timothy  departed  first,  because  he  was  detained  a  con- 
siderable time  in  Macedonia.  Perhaps  the  messengers  from  the  Corinthian  church  were 
already  come  to  Ephesus  when  Timothy  was  going  away,  and  as  Paul  wished  to  give 
them  a  copious  reply,  on  that  account  he  sent  no  epistle  by  Timothy. 

\  It  favors  this,  that  in  Acts  xix.  22,  only  Macedonia  is  mentioned  as  the  object  of  his 
mission,  and  that  Paul  himself,  2  Cor.  xii.  18,  does  not  mention  him  with  the  others  who 
were  sent  by  him  to  Corinth.  Still  these  circumstances  prove  nothing;  for  as  to  the  first, 
the  account  in  the  Acts  is  not  complete  ;  and  the  second  may  be  explained  by  supposing 
that  Paul  wrote  all  that  he  wished  to  say  concerning  Timothy  in  tho  lost  epistle  commit- 
ted to  Titus  (which  must,  according  to  this  view,  be  presupposed),  and  that  he  did  not 
consider  it  necessary  to  make  any  further  allusion  to  Timothy  in  our  Second  Epistle.  Be- 
sides, he  is  speaking  here  of  the  second  sending  of  Titus  and  only  of  what  had  quita 
recently  taken  place. 


FIRST   EPISTLE   TO   THE   CORINTHIANS.  251 

without  an)  news  from  the  Corinthian  church,  before  his  departure  from 
Ephesus,  to  send  Titus  to  Corinth  that  he  might  operate  on  the  minds  of 
the  converts  there  in  a  manner  suitable  to  the  impression  made  by  his 
epistle,  and  bring  back  news  of  the  state  of  things  among  them.  We 
must  then  suppose  that  he  sent  no  fresh  letter  by  this  new  messenger,  or 
at  least  only  sent  with  him  a  few  lines  as  his  credentials,  since,  having 
written  so  full  a  letter  before,  he  thought  it  unnecessary  to  write  again 
on  the  present  occasion.  In  this  way  it  can  be  explained  that  we  find 
in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  no  hint  of  an  intervening  epistle 
after  our  first.     " 

But  the  second  explanation  is  this,*  that  Timothy  actually  went  to 
Corinth,  but  communicated  to  the  apostle  very  sad  and  distressing 
accounts  respecting  the  disposition  of  a  part  of  the  church.  In  conse- 
quence, Paul  was  induced  to  send  Titus  to  Corinth  with  a  second  epistle 
referring  to  the  occurrences  in  the  Corinthian  church,  of  which  he  had 
been  informed  by  Timothy,  and  since  enough  had  been  spoken  of  this  in- 
tervening visit  and  of  Timothy's  reception  in  this  lost  epistle,  no  more 
was  said  on  these  points  in  our  second  epistle,  which  was  strictly  speak- 
ing the  third,  and  in  all  the  fourth.  In  the  decision  of  this  question  all 
turns  upon  this  point,  whether  the  letter  so  often  mentioned  in  our 
second  epistle  according  to  the  indications  in  the  passages  referred  to, 
can  be  what  we  call  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  or  whether  we 
are  obliged  to  suppose  another  which  would  be  that  sent  by  Titus. 

Paul  says  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  chapter  that  he  had  altered 
his  former  plan  of  travelling  immediately  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth  (2 
Cor.  i.  16)  and  had  resolved  to  go  first  to  Macedonia,f  in  order  that  he 
might  not  be  obliged  to  give  them  pain  by  coming  to  them  while  the 
evils  which  he  censured  in  his  first  epistle  were  still  in  existence.  On 
this  account  he  wished,  instead  of  coming  immediately  from  Ephesus  to 
Corinth,  rather  to  communicate  by  letter  what  was  painful  to  them 
(which  may  very  well  refer  to  the  reprehensions  contained  in  the  first 
epistle)  and  to  await  its  operation  in  producing  repentance,  before  he 
came  to  them  in  person.  He  says  of  the  epistle  in  question,  that  he  had 
written  it  in  great  anguish  of  heart,  and  with  many  tears,  for  his  object 
had  been  not  to  give  them  pain,  but  to  evince  his  love  for  them.  Does 
not  this  suit  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  iv.  8-19 ;  vi.  7  ;  x.  1  ?  Does  not  that 
which  he  here  says  of  his  feelings  correctly  describe  that  state  of  mind  in 
which  the  news  respecting  the  dangerous  condition  of  the  Corinthian 
church  must  have  placed  him  ?  Do  not,  in  fact,  several  severe  passages 
occur  in  this  epistle  which  might  have  awakened  in  the  heart  of  Paul,  so 
full  of  fatherly  love  towards  the  church,  the  apprehension  that  he  had 

*  Adopted  by  Bleek  in  his  valuable  essay  already  mentioned,  in  the  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1830,  part  Hi.  But  his  arguments  have  not  yet  met  with  the  favor,  to  which 
their  weight,  it  seems  to  me,  entitles  them. 

\  Which  change  of  plan  he  had  certainly  already  announced  to  them  in  the  First  Epis- 
tle, xvi.  5. 


252  PAUL   AT   EPHESU8. 

uttered  something  which  had  wounded  them  too  deeply  ?  Is  it  not  ? 
striking  agreement  when  in  this  epistle  so  much  is  said  of  an  individual 
on, whom  Paul  had  passed  so  severe  a  judgment,  and  exactly  in  our  first 
epistle  such  a  case  occurs  affecting  such  an  individual.*  Must  not  this, 
therefore,  serve  as  proof  that  this  first  epistle  is  the  one  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made  in  the  second  ?  This  epistle  was  also  well  suited  to  call 
forth  in  the  Corinthians  that  sense  of  their  criminality,  and  that  sorrow 
that  leads  to  salvation,  as  Paul  says  of  that  epistle  in  2  Cor.  vii.  9. 

Still  we  must  not  trust  too  much  to  this  appearance.  Although 
the  case  here  mentioned  seems,  to  be  the  same  with  that  which  we 
find  in  the  first  epistle,  yet  on  a  closer  examination,  some  impor- 
tant particulars  meet  our  notice  which  indicate  a  difference.  Paul 
guards  himself,  ii.  5,  against  the  supposition  that  he  felt  personally  in- 
jured. "  But  if  any  hath  caused  grief,"  he  says,  "  he  hath  not  grieved 
me,  but  in  part,  that  I  may  not  overcharge  you  all."  He  therefore  rep- 
resents what  had  taken  place  as  not  affecting  himself  personally,  but 
rather  as  an  injury  done  to  the  whole  church.  But  in  reference  to  the 
offender,  of  whom  we  are  informed  in  the  first  epistle,  there  was  no  rea- 
son whatever  that  he  should  so  guard  himself.  In  that  whole  affair 
there  was  absolutely  nothing  personal.  If  he  took  it  so  to  heart,  it 
would  only  reflect  credit  on  him  from  every  quarter.  It  manifested  his 
fatherly  care  for  the  salvation  of  that  individual,  and  for  the  welfare  of 
the  whole  church.  When,  moreover,  he  speaks  of  a  pardon  to  be 
granted  by  himself  and  the  church,  this  certainly  suits  far  better  a  wrong 
done  personally  to  the  apostle  in  the  exercise  of  his  official  power,  than 
a  sin  for  which  the  divine  forgiveness  was  to  be  chiefly  sought,  and 
not  a  forgiveness  dependent  on  the  will  of  a  man.f  Paul,  in  speaking 
(vii.  8)  of  the  wholesome  effects  of  the  epistle  in  question,  reckons 
among  them  (v.  11 )  that  an  opportunity  was  given  to  the  church  of 
proving  their  complete  freedom  from  blame  in  the  affair.  But  in  the 
ease  of  that  offending  person,  no  blame  could  attach  to  the  church,  ex- 
cepting their  having  omitted  to  show  their  abhorrence  of  such  conduct 
by  excluding  him  from  church-communion.  On  the  other  hand,  what  is 
said  would  find  its  immediate  application  if  the  main  point  was  contuma- 
cious behavior  of  an  individual  against  the  apostle  of  a  kind  in  which 
others  might  have  appeared  to  take  a  share.  Further,  Paul  says  in 
v.  12,  that  he  had  written  in  this  tone  to  them,  "  not  for  his  sake  who  did 
the  wrong,  nor  for  his  cause  that  had  suffered  wrong,  but  that  they 
might  have  the  opportunity  of  showing  to  one  another  their  sincere  at- 

*  We  cannot  attach  so  much  weight,  as  does  Baur,  to  the  fact  that  both  in  2  Cor.  ii.  6, 
and  1  Cor.  v.  5,  the  individual  mentioned  is  designated  as  "such  an  one,"  6  toiovtos;  for 
Paul  might,  agreeably  to  the  connexion,  have  used  the  expression  in  both  passages,  even 
though  it  referred  to  different  persons. 

f  We  know  indeed  that  it  can  be  explained  by  referring  everything  to  a  readmission  tc 
church  fellowship ;  but  the  striking  part  of  the  expression  will  not  in  that  way  be  rendered 
prominent,  and  the  other  explanation  is  far  more  simple  and  natural 


SENDING   AWAY   OF   TIMOTHY   ASTD   TITUS.  253 

tachment  for  him."*  That  expression,  "to  do  wrong,"  dSticelv,  was  in 
itself  not  suited  to  mark  a  sin  as  such.  And  if  he  was  speaking  of  a 
vicious  person  as  such,  the  principal  thing  as  far  as  regarded  that  person 
would  be  to  lend  him  to  repentance.  He  needed  not  to  avoid  the  ap- 
pearance of  being  too  zealous  in  such  a  matter.  No  one,  as  we  have 
said,  could  blame  him  for  that.  But  everything  agrees  very  well  with 
the  supposition  that  the  case  was  one  in  which  Paul  was  personally 
injured.  Under  such  circumstances  there  was  occasion  for  guarding 
himself  against  the  reproach  that  he  had  been  carried  away  by  personal 
feelings.  And  thus  he  could  affirm  that  he  had  been  moved  to  write, not 
from  a  desire  to  retaliate  on  the  person  who  had  done  him  wrong,  nor 
from  concern  for  his  own  honor — the  honor  of  him  on  whom  the  wrong 
had  been  committed — but  he  wished  to  give  them  an  opportunity  to 
clear  themselves  of  all  share  in  this  matter,  and  to  evince  their  zeal  for 
his  person  and  his  apostolic  authority. 

It  remains  to  be  noticed  that  the  affair  of  this  immoral  person  occu- 
pies only  a  very  small  part  of  our  First  Epistle,  and  many  other  subjects 
are  treated  of  far  more  fully.  By  what  is  said  in  the  Second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  of  the  letter  in  question,  we  are  led  to  suppose  that 
it  related  wholly  or  principally  to  that  one  affair. 

If  we  compare  all  these  marks  with  one  another,  we  shall  certainly 
be  disposed  to  favor  the  second  of  the  above-named  suppositions.  We 
shall  be  led  to  believe  that  Timothy  brought  many  painful  and  distres- 
sing accounts  to  the  apostle,  especially  respecting  the  commotion  excited 
by  an  individual  who  had  acted  contumaciously  against  Paul,  and  called 
in  question  his  apostolic  authority.  On  this  account  Paul  sent  Titus 
with  a  letter  to  Corinth,  in  which  he  expressed  himself  very  strongly 
respecting  the  affair ;  so  much  so,  that  after  Titus  had  set  out,  his  fa- 
therly heart  was  seized  with  anxiety  lest  he  had  written  too  harshly,  and 
been  guilty  of  injustice  to  the  church. 

But  after  the  sending  of  Titus,  a  violent  popular  tumult  arose  at  Ephe- 
sus  against  the  apostle,f  which  was  nevertheless  an  evidence  of  the  great 

*  Internal  grounds  do  not  render  it  necessary  to  depart  from  this  objective  and  gen- 
erally accredited  reading.  Certainly  the  zeal  of  the  church  for  Paul's  authority  would  first 
of  all  be  expressed  among  themselves  in  their  behavior  towards  one  another.  This  it  was 
which  Titus  must  first  observe  among  them  as  the  effect  of  Paul's  epistle.  But  that  Paul 
had  cause  to  recognise  this  zeal  as  not  assumed,  but  as  genuine  and  sincere,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  phrase  "before  God."  Thus- this  reading  gives  a  very  suitable  sense. 
Also  what  follows  in  verse  14  agrees  very  well  with  it,  where  Paul  says  that  he  was  not 
ashamed  of  what  he  had  boasted  to  Titus  respecting  the  Corinthian  church,  but  that  his 
boasting  was  found  a  truth.  Paul  had  previously  told  Titus,  who  was  perhaps  afraid  of 
the  hostile  tone  of  the  excited  church,  that  he  knew  they  would  by  no  means  make  com- 
mon cause  with  that  person  who  had  risen  up  so  warmly  against  Paul's  apostolic  authori- 
ty; and  so  it  proved.  They  vied  with  one  another  in  zeal  for  the  maintenance  of  his 
authority. 

f  As  to  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Baur  that  all  the  details  given  in  the  Acts  of  Paul's  con- 
flicts with  Jewish  exorcism  and  heathen  magic,  and  of  the  popular  tumult  occasioned  by 


254  PAUL    AT    EmESUS. 

success  of  his  ministry  in  Lesser  Asia.  Small  models  in  gold  and  silvef 
of  the  famed  temple  of  Artemis  were  numerousjy  made,*  and  being  sent 
to  distant  parts  as  objects  of  devotion,  brought  great  gain  to  the  city. 
A  man  named  Demetrius,  who  had  a  large  manufactory  of  such  models, 
and  a  great  number  of  workmen,  began  to  fear,  since  the  gospel  had 
spread  with  such  success  in  Lesser  Asia,  and  faith  in  Artemis  had  so  far 
declinedf  as  to  lessen  the  sale  of  his  wares  in  this  region,  that  the  gains 
of  ids  trade  would  soon  be  lost.  He  assembled  his  numerous  workmen, 
and  easily  inflamed  their  anger  against  the  enemies  of  their  gods,  who 
threatened  to  deprive  the  great  Artemis  of  her  honor,  and  them  of  their 
gain.  A  great  tumult  arose,  they  all  hastened  to  the  public  place  where 
they  were  wont  to  assemble,  and  many  cried  out,  some  one  thing,  some 
another,  without  knowing  why  they  were  come  together.  As  the  Jews 
here  lived  in  the  midst  of  a  numerous  Greek  population  who  viewed  them 
with  constant  aversion,  any  special  occasion  easily  roused  their  slumber- 
ing prejudices  into  open  violence,  and  they  had  then  much  to  suffer  ;  they 
feared  therefore,  that  the  anger  of  the  people  against  the  enemies  of  their 
gods — especially  as  many  did  not  exactly  know  who  these  enemies  were 

the  decline  of  the  worship  of  Artemis,  have  no  historical  worth,  but  are  only  fabrications 
intended  to  please  the  imagination  (Baur  declares  that  the  design  of  the  author  of  the 
Acts  was  to  present  as  brilliant  a  picture  as  possible  of  Paul's  ministry  at  Ephesus,  Ed.), 
or  to  magnify  Paul  in  comparison  with  Peter — such  an  assertion  we  regard  as  completely 
baseless.  Whoever  indeed  cannot  for  one  moment  transport  himself  out  of  the  narrow 
circle  of  that  limited  view  of  the  world  which  belongs  to  the  nineteenth  century,  must  see 
everywhere,  in  the  wonderful  age  of  which  we  are  speaking,  myths  or  fictions  written  for 
a  special  end.  But  when  Baur,  in  reference  to  Acts  xix.  20,  says,  "What  would  such  a 
Christianity  be,  but  an  exchange  of  one  form  of  superstition  for  another?  And  yet,  the 
author  of  the  Acts  can  pass  such  a  judgment  as  this  (xix.  20)  upon  it.  Such  a  view  is 
too  unworthy  of  the  position  of  an  apostle,  and  too  much  conformed  to  a  later  period, 
to  allow  of  our  having  any  doubt  about  its  origin  :" — we  reply,  Certainly  if  nothing  more 
had  taken  place  for  the  spread  of  Christianity  than  the  extraordinary  event  recorded  in 
that  passage  of  the  Acts,  this  would  have  availed  nothing.  But  those  facts  could  not 
have  taken  place  if  the  Gospel  had  not  previously  been  revealed  as  the  victorious  power 
of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men.  Paul,  who  met  the  Jews  that  "required  a  sign,"  with  "  the 
demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power,"  nevertheless  made  his  appeal  that  he  had  been 
accredited  as  an  Apostle  by  anueta,  repara  and  Swa/ieis,  2  Cor.  xii.  1 2.  According  to 
the  views  of  the  apostles  the  two  were  to  be  combined ;  the  internal  evidence  of  the  power 
of  God  by  the  spiritual  operation  of  the  published  word,  and  the  accompanying  external 
signs  presenting  themselves  as  visible  marks  of  the  former.  But  it  belongs  to  the  method 
of  these  most  ancient  Christian  Records,  that  the  internal  operations  are  only  briefly  indi 
cated  or  presupposed  instead  of  being  described  at  length,  while  on  the  contrary  whatever 
could  be  an  object  of  outward  observation  is  given  more  in  detail. 

*  The  words  of  Paul,  Acts  xx.  19,  perhaps  intimate  that  this  popular  disturbance  pro- 
ceeded from  the  machinations  of  the  Jews,  though  it  afterwards  threatened  to  be  danger- 
ous to  the  Jews  themselves. 

\  It  is  possible,  that  the  successful  ministry  of  Paul  already  threatened  the  destruction 
of  idolatry,  though  after  the  first  successful  propagation  of  the  gospel,  a  pause  in  its  pro- 
gress intervened,  as  has  often  occurred.  Compare  Pliny's  account  of  the  decline  of  hea 
thenism,  in  my  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  140. 


THE   TUMULT  AT   EPHESUS.  255 

— would  be  turned  upon  themselves  ;  and  one  of  their  number  Alexander 
by  name,  came  forward,  in  order  to  shift  the  blame  from  themselves  upon 
the  Christians  ;  but  the  appearance  of  snch  a  person  whom  they  ranked 
among  these  enemies,  aroused  the  heathen  to  still  greater  fury,  and  the 
clamour  became  more  violent.  But  on  this  occasion  the  populace  only 
appear  to  have  been  hostile  to  the  teachers  of  Christianity ;  the  manner 
in  which  Paul  had  lived  and  acted  during  his  long  residence  in  the  city 
must  have  operated  advantageously  on  the  public  authorities  of  the  city. 
Some  even  of  the- magistrates  who  had  the  charge  this  year  of  regulat- 
ing all  the  sacra  in  Lesser  Asia,*  and  who  presided  over  the  public 
games,  showed  their  sympathy  for  him,  for  when  he  was  on  the  point  of 
exposing  himself  to  the  excited  crowd,  they  besought  him  not  to  incur 
this  danger.  And  the  chamberlain  of  the  city  at  last  succeeded  in  calm- 
ing the  minds  of  the  people  by  his  representations,  by  calling  on  them  to 
give  an  account  of  the  object  of  their  meeting,  of  which  the  majority 
were  totally  ignorant,  and  by  reminding  them  of  the  serious  responsi- 
bility they  incurred  for  their  turbulent  and  unlawful  behavior. 

It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Paul  was  determined  by  this  disturbance, 
which  seems  to  have  been  quite  transitory,  to  leave  Ephesus  earlier  than 
he  had  intended  according  to  his  original  plan.  When  he  wrote  his  first 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  he  spoke  to  them  of  the  dangers  which  daily 
threatened  him,  and  yet  these  had  no  influence  in  determining  the  length 
of  his  sojourn  in  this  city.  Perhaps  we  may  find  several  allusions  to  this 
very  disturbance.!     A  comparison  of  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  to 

»  'Aoidpxai:  each  of  the  cities  which  formed  the  Kotvov  rfc  'Aert'af  chose  a  delegate 
yearly  for  this  college  of  'Xcnupxai.  See  Aristid.  Orat.  Sacr.  iv.  ed.  Dindorf.  vol.  i.  p. 
531 ;  and  probably  the  president  of  this  college  would  be  called  dpxiepeiis,  aaidpxM ;  his 
name  was  employed  in  marking  the  date  of  public  events ;  see  the  Letter  of  the  Church 
at  Smyrna,  on  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  ;  and  Ezechiel  Spanheim,  de  Prcestantia  et  Usu 
Numismatum,  ed.  secunda,  p.  691. 

f  He  says,  1  Cor.  xv.  31,  that  he  was  daily  exposed  to  death,  which  may  lead  us  to 
conclude,  that  before  he  had  reached  the  end  of  this  epistle,  (which  was  probably  not 
written  all  at  once,)  this  disturbance  had  taken  place.  Thus  we  may  take  the  words-  in  v. 
32,  with  Theodoret,  in  a  literal  sense;  "according  to  human  calculation,  I  had  become 
the  prey  of  wild  beasts,  but  I  was  miraculously  kept  safe,"  Kara  dvdpumvov  Xoyia/idv 
6tjpl(j>v  iyevofirjv  j3opu,  ukXu  napadu^ug  eou07)v,  that  is,  it  was  demanded  by  the  raging 
populace,  as  afterwards  was  often  the  case  in  the  persecutions  of  the  Christians,  that  the 
enemy  of  the  gods  should  be  condemned  to  the  beasts,  to  the  lion,  ad  beslias,  ad  leonem. 
But  though  such  a  cry  might  certainly  have  been  raised  by  the  infuriated  multitude,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  suppose,  considering  the  existing  circumstances,  that  their  desire  would 
have  been  granted,  and  Paul  therefore  could  not  have  said,  that,  as  far  as  he  could  expect, 
according  to  human  judgment,  he  would  have  been,  except  for  the  wonderful  help  of  God, 
a  prey  to  the  wild  beasts.  Also  this  interpretation  of  the  words  Kara  avdpunov,  is  not 
the  easiest  and  most  favored  by  the  connexion.  I  rather  find  in  theso  words,  according 
to  the  connexion,  the  contrast  to  the  Christian  hope,  the  designation  of  the  position  of 
men  in  general  who  are  destitute  of  this  hope.  By  the  wild  beasts  must  therefore  be 
understood,  savage  infuriated  men  with  whom  T?  a\  had  to  contend.  From  Rom.  xvi  4, 
where  it  is  said  that  Prhcilla  and  Aquila  had  ventured  their  lives  for  him,  as  well  as  fronc 


256  PAUL   AT   EPHESUS. 

tae  Corinthians  with  one  another,  may  indeed  favor  the  belief,  that  Paul 
wrote  the  latter  after  this  event,  since  he  here  writes  as  one  who  had 
baen  rescued  from  impending  death.*  But  it  may  be  supposed,  that  when 
he  found  himself  in  the  midst  of  those  dangers,  the  higher  concerns  of 
which  he  treated  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  so  occupied 
him,  that  he  forgot  everything  personal ;  but  that  when  he  had  left 
Ephesus,  the  recollections  of  the  special  dealings  of  Providence,  which 
had  rescued  him  from  such  dangers,  filled  him  with  overflowing  gratitude 
which  he  could  not  suppress. 

what  Paul  says  in  Acts  xx.  19,  we  may  gather  that  he  was  exposed  to  many  dangers  at 
Ephesus   which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  Acts. 

*  According  to  the  interpretation  proposed  by  Ruckert,  these  expressions  do  not  refer 
to  persecutions  endured  by  Paul,  but  to  a  dangerous  illness,  the  effects  of  which  accom- 
panied him  to  Macedonia,  and  were  felt  by  him  when  he  wrote  this  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  But  on  comparing  all  that  relates  to  it,  I  cannot  assent  to  this  view.  As 
to  the  passage  in  2  Cor.  i.  8,  it  appears  to  me  that  these  words  must  be  explained  accord- 
ing to  v.  5.  I  grant,  indeed,  that  natural  diseases  may  be  called  in  a  certain  sense 
"  sufferings  of  Christ,"  nadyfiara  tov  Xpiarov ;  but,  in  accordance  with  Pauline  usage, 
we  should  apply  such  a  designation  primarily  to  suffering  for  the  cause  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  in  which  the  believer  follows  Christ.  Ruckert  thinks  that  if  Paul  had 
intended  to  signify  the  persecution  that  had  been  excited  at  Ephesus,  he  would  have 
named  the  city  itself,  as  in  the  First  Epistle.  But  I  do  not  see  why  he  should  not  chocse 
the  general  designation  of  the  region  of  which  Ephesus  was  the  metropolis  ;  and,  it  is 
possible,  that  the  exasperatiou  of  the  heathen  against  him  spread  from  Ephesus  to  other 
parts  of  Lesser  Asia  which  he  visited.  Why  then  might  he  not  say,  that  the  persecutions 
exceeded  the  measure  of  his  human  strength,  that  he  was  almost  overcome  and  despaired 
of  his  life?  In  2  Cor.  iv.  9  and  11,  he  distinctly  notices  persecutions  by  which  he  was 
in  continual  danger  of  death,  with  which  1  Cor.  xv.  30,  31  agrees;  from  these  passages 
we  may  conclude  that  he  was  exposed  to  more  dangers  than  are  recorded  in  the  Acts. 
And  in  this  way  other  passages  must  be  explained.  The  mention  of  the  earthen  vessels, 
2  Cor.  iv.  7,  is  not  against  this  view,  for  the  conflicts  which  Paul  had  to  sustain  always 
served  to  awaken  in  his  mind  a  more  vivid  consciousness  that  he  carried  about  the  divine 
treasure  in  an  earthen  broken  vessel,  that  this  shattered  receptacle  would  soon  bo  entirely 
destroyed  by  such  assaults  unless  strengthened  and  rescued  by  Almighty  power.  He 
might  well  say  in  v.  10,  that  he  always  bore  about  in  his  body  the  "dying  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,"  venpuoig  tov  'Iriaov,  because  he  was  always  exposed  to  death  for  the  cause  of 
Christ  (v.  11.),  and  bearing  the  marks  of  these  sufferings  in  his  body,  he  thus  carried  with 
him  an  image  of  the  suffering  Saviour  in  his  own  person.  "What  he  says  in  v.  9,  and  in 
the  whole  context,  marks  the  disposition  of  one  who  had  reason  to  consider  the  duration 
of  his  life  as  very  uncertain,  whether  he  met  with  a  natural  or  violent  death.  2  Cor.  vi. 
9  is  to  be  explained  according  to  iv.  9  and  11.  2  Cor.  vii.  5  shows  that  even  in  Mace- 
donia he  had  no  respite  from  his  sufferings,  but  was  overwhelmed  with  fresh  trials.  Here 
we  find  no  trace  of  illness.  The  word  aup^  by  no  means  justifies  us  in  understanding  the 
passage  of  illness;  it  denotes  everything  which  could  affect  the  outer  man,  while  within 
the  highest  peace  might  be  enjoyed.  The  passage  in  2  Cor.  xii.  7  (see  p.  17  H  is  too  ob- 
scure for  us  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  it  with  certainty ;  and  even  if  here  a  chronic 
disorder  were  intended,  it  would  not  be  clear  that  what  was  said  before  had  any  reference 
to  it.  We  do  not  deny  that  Paul  had  to  contend  with  much  bodily  weakness;  we 
do  not  deny,  see  p.  171,  that  the  tribulation  he  endured  must  have  impaired  his 
bodily  strength ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  passages  above  quoted  have  such  ? 
reference. 


SECOND   EPISTLE   TO   THE   CORINTIIIANS.  257 

After  Paul  had  labored  at  Troas  in  preaching  the  gospel,  and  had 
waited  in  vain  for  Titus,  whom  he  expected  on  his  return  from  Corinth, 
he  left  that  place  with  troubled  feelings,  and  went  to  meet  him  in  Mace- 
donia. Among  the  Macedonian  churches  he  met  with  gratifying  proofs 
of  the  advance  of  the  Christian  life,  to  which  their  conflicts  with  the 
world  had  contributed.  Doubtless  no  persecutions  of  Christianity  as  a 
religio  illieita  had  as  yet  been  commenced  by  the  authorities  of  the  state. 
But  still  the  Christians,  by  their  withdrawing,  from  the  heathen  worship 
and  all  that  was  connected  with  it,  must  have  unfavorably  impressed  the 
heathen  among  whom  they  lived,  and  excited  the  hatred  of  the  fanatical 
populace,  who  were  further  instigated  by  the  Jews.  Even  if  no  legal 
charge  could  be  brought  against  the  believers  as  apostates  from  the  re- 
ligion of  the  state,  still  without  this  instrument,  zealous  heathens,  who 
fprmed  so  large  a  majority,  possessed  sufficient  means  to  oppress  or 
injure  in  their  worldly  prospects  a  class  of  persons  so  far  below  them- 
selves in  numbers,  respectability,  and  political  influence.  It  may  illus- 
trate this,  if  we  only  think  of  what  converts  to  Christianity  in  the  East 
Indies  have  had  to  endure  (though  under  a  Christian  government)  from 
their  heathen  relatives  and  connexions.  But  the  Macedonian  Christians 
cheerfully  endured  everything  for  the  cause  of  the  gospel ;  and  however 
much  their  means  of  subsistence  had  been  injured,  they  were  ready  to 
take  an  active  part  in  the  collection  made  by  Paul  in  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem, even  "  beyond  their  power ;"  2  Cor.  viii.  In  Macedonia  the 
apostle  had  also  at  last  the  satisfaction  of  meeting  with  Titus,  and  of 
learning  from  him  that  his  epistle  had  produced  a  salutary  effect,  if  not 
on  the  whole,  yet  on  the  greater  part  of  the  Corinthian  church.  The 
disapprobation  of  the  larger  and  better  part  had  been  expressed  against 
the  incestuous  person,  and  the  voice  of  this  majority,  which  as  such  must 
have  been  decisive  in  the  assemblies  of  the  church,  had  either  actually 
expelled  him  from  church  communion,  according  to  the  judgment  ex- 
pressed by  Paul,  or  the  actual  execution  of  the  sentence  had  been  put  off 
in  the  event  of  his  not  receiving  forgiveness  from  the  apostle.  When 
the  resolution  of  the  majority  was  announced  to  the  offender,  with  ex- 
pressions of  severe  reprehension,  he  expressed  the  greatest  sorrow  and 
penitence.  On  this  account  the  majority,  who  always  acknowledged  the 
apostolic  authority  of  Paul,  interceded  on  his  behalf  that  a  milder  course 
might  be  adopted,  and  Paul  assented,  in  order  that  the  penitent  might 
not  be  plunged  in   despair,  and  thus  a  greater  calamity  ensue.*     The 

*  In  the  words,  2  Cor.  ii.  5-10,  I  cannot  find  anything  different  from  what  I  have 
stated  in  the  text.  Nor  do  they  support  Riickert's  assertion,  that  the  majority  of  the 
church,  thougt  febey  expressed  their  disapprobation  of  the  offender,  were  not  disposed  to 
proceed  against  '  ,im  as  severely  as  Paul  desired,  and  that  the  apostle  only  yielded  to  their 
wishes  from  prudential  motives,  in  order  to  maintain  his  authority,  and  to  preserve  the 
appeara^oe  of  directing  their  decisions.  Paul  says,  2  Cor.  ii.  6,  "Sufficient  to  such  a  man 
is  this  puni^Lraent  which  was  inflicted  of  many."  From  this  we  cannot  infer  that  it  dif- 
fered from  the  sentence  passed  by  the  apostle  himself.     Tim  said  he — only  referring  tc 

17 


258  PAUL   IN   MACEDONIA. 

majority  showed  the  greatest  regard  for  the  apostle's  authority  ;  they 
lamented  having  occasioned  him  so  much  trouble,  and  assured  him  how 
earnestly  they  longed  to  see  him  soon  among  them.  But  Paul's  oppo- 
nents among  the  Judaizers  were  not  humbled,  but  on  the  contrary,  were 
only  embittered  against  him  by  his-  reprimand  and  the  submission  paid 
to  him  by  the  rest  of  the  church,  and  used  every  means  in  their  power 
to  make  the  church  suspicious  of  him.  They  said  that  he  was  powerful 
only  in  his  letters,  but  that  "  his  bodily  presence  was  weak,  and  his 
speech  contemptible;"  2  Cor.  x.  10.  He  threatened  more  than  he  could 
perform,  and  hence  was  very  far  from  formidable.  He  was  conscious  of 
his  weakness,  and  therefore  was  always  threatening  to  come,  but  never 
came.  In  his  first  epistle,  which  has  not  come  down  to  us,  he  probably 
threatened  the  contumacious  that  he  would  soon  come  to  Corinth,  and  if 
what  was  amiss  were  not  rectified,  he  would  exert  the  utmost  preroga- 
tive of  his  office.  In  that  lost  epistle,  or  by  verbal  communications,  he 
had  announced  to  them  that  as  soon  as  he  had  left  Ephesus,  he  Avould  come 
immediately  to  them,  as  he  wished,  after  a  transient  sojourn  at  Corinth, 
to  travel  into  Macedonia,  and  return  again  to  them,  in  order  to  remain 
with  them  till  his  intended  departure  to  Jerusalem.*     But  since  he  now 

what  had  taken  place,  and  in  connexion  with  what  followed — is  indeed  not  unanimous, 
but  yet  the  punishment  awarded  to  him  by  the  voice  of  the  majority.  "  It  is  sufficient,'' 
may  mean,  enough  has  been  done  that  this  sentence  of  the  majority  has  been  expressed, 
and  that  he  has  been  brought  to  contrition,  so  that  now  a  milder  course  may  be  adopted, 
and  he  may  be  received  again  into  church-communion.  Or,  it  is  sufficient  that  the  major- 
ity have  adopted  this  resolution  ;  but  since  he  is  now  penitent,  it  need  not  be  carried 
into  effect  The  pain  which  he  has  already  suffered  is  enough.  Hence,  (v.  7),  instead  of 
continuing  to  act  with  that  strictness,  and  carrying  into  effect  that  resolution  of  the 
church,  they  might  announce  forgiveness  to  him,  for  (v.  9)  Paul  had  attained  his  object ; 
they  had,  by  virtue  of  that  resolution  of  the  majority,  given  him  the  proof  he  required  of 
their  obedience.  He  required  nothing  more  (v.  10.)  As  they  had  assented  to  his  severe 
sentence,  so  now  he  was  ready  with  them  to  forgive,  for  he  had  attained  the  object  he  had 
at  heart — the  welfare  of  the  church.  Paul  also  expressly  commends  (vii.  11)  the  indigna- 
tion they  had  manifested  in  this  affair,  the  "revenge,"  eK<5k?7<nf,  they  had  felt,  thus  acquit- 
ting themselves  of  all  participation  in  the  wickedness.  As  I  must  here  reaffirm  the  view 
I  have  before  taken,  I  must  also  state  that  I  find  no  ground  for  the  complaint  made  by 
Ruckert,  with  whom  Baur  agrees,  against  Paul,  although  I  must  admit  the  right  to  such 
a  free  judgment  even  on  an  apostle,  and  can  find  in  it  nothing  unchristian.  Neither  can  I 
here  discern  that  excessive  warmth  of  temper,  which  never  does  good,  nor  afterwards  the 
returniug  prudence,  which,  at  the  cost  of  truthfulness,  would  as  far  as  possible  repair  the 
damage  done  in  the  heat  of  passion ;  even  if  I  admit  as  settled  the  disputed  point  that  the 
reference  here  is  to  the  same  case  as  in  1  Cor.  v.  3.  I  discern  in  this  latter  passage  noth- 
ing but  genuine  apostolic  zeal  against  sin,  which  could  be  hekl  back  by  no  considerations, 
and  which  even  the  unfavorable  issue  could  not  prove  to  be  wrong;  for  what  is  right 
remains  so,  independently  of  the  consequences  which  depend  on  the  wills  of  men,  and  on 
circumstances. 

*  2  Cor.  i.  15.  "  In  this  confidence  I  wished  first"  (placed,  according  to  the  more  cor- 
rect reading,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  before  eIOeIv)  "to  come  to  yow"  (before  I  went  to 
Macedonia.)  "  that  you  might  receive  a  second  work  of  grace  "  (that  is,  the  second  through 
his  ministrations,  when  he  should  make  them  a  longer  visit  on  his  return  fr  >m  Macedonia. 
as  is  specially  stated  in  the  sixteenth  verse,  which  is  explanatory  of  the  pn  :eding). 


SECOND    EPISTLE   TO    THE    CORINTHIANS.  259 

remained  longer  in  Ephesus,  since  he  had  altered  the  plan  of  his  journey, 
and  had  announced  to  the  Corinthians  that  he  would  first  go  into  Mace- 
donia, and  then  come  to  them ;  so  they  took  advantage  of  this  arrangement 
to  accuse  him  of  conscious  weakness,  of  vacillation,  and  of  .ambiguity  in 
his  expressions.  And  thus  uncertain  and  vacillating,  they  concluded,  he 
must  be  as  a  teacher.  Hence  his  self-contradictory  conduct  in  reference 
to  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law  by  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  They 
endeavored  to  set  in  a  false  light  that  Christian  prudence  which  always 
distinguished  Paul,  and  which  was  united  in  him  with  perfect  simplicity 
of  intention,  as  if  he  employed  a  variety  of  artifices  to  deceive  men. 
Also  all  that  was  amiss,  which  he  had  denounced  in  his  letters,  had  not  yet 
been  put  away  by  that  part  of  the  church  which  adhered  to  the  apostle. 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  Corinthian  church,  Paul  thought  it  best — 
in  order  that  his  own  visit  to  Corinth  might  be  disturbed  by  no  unpleas- 
ant occurrences,  and  that  his  intercourse  with  the  Corinthians  might  be 
one  of  joy  and  love — to  write  once  more  to  them,  in  order  to  prepare 
the  way  for  his  personal  ministry  among  them.  He  sent  Titus,  with  two 
other  able  persons  in  the  service  of  the  church,  as  bearers  of  this  epistle 
to  Corinth.* 

In  reference  to  that  marked  suspicion  of  his  conduct  and  character, 
Paul  appeals  in  this  epistle  to  the  testimony  of  his  own  conscience,  that 
in  his  intercourse  with  men  in  general,  and  especially  with  the  Corinth- 
ians, he  had  been  guided  not  by  worldly  prudence,  but  by  the  Spirit  of 
God;  he  contrasts  one  with  the  other,  since  he  considered  simplicity  and 
uprightness  of  intention  as  the  essential  mark  of  the  agency  of  the  Divine 
Spirit.  His  epistle  also  testifies  to  this ;  as  he  wrote,  so  he  thought  :f  he 
had  nothing  in  his  mind  different  from  his  avowed  intentions.  He  states 
the  reasons  of  the  alteration  in  the  plan  of  his  journey,  and  draws  the 
conclusion  that  no  inconsistency  can  be  found  in  what  he  had  said  on 
this  matter.  And  he  could  call  God  to  witness  that  no  inconsistency  could 
be  found  in  his  manner  of  publishing  the  gospel ;  that  he  had  always 
preached  one  unchangeable  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  the  promises  which 
they  received  would  be  certainly  fulfilled  through  Christ.J     God  himself 

*  One  of  these  (2  Cor.  viii.  18)  was  chosen  from  the  Macedonian  churches,  that  he 
might  in  their  name  convey  the  collection  to  Jerusalem,  and  he  is  distinguished  as  one 
whose  "  praise  was  in  all  the  churches"  for  his  activity  in  publishing  the  gospel.  It  may 
have  been  Luke,  or  some  other  person. 

f  2  Cor.  i.  12,  13.  The  grounds  on  which  De  T7ette  objects  to  this  interpretation  are 
not  obvious  to  me.  "  But  what  suspicion  of  duplicity  could  the  confident  assertions  in  v. 
12  awaken,"  he  asks.  This  verse  could  indeed  awaken  no  such  suspicion,  but  is  rather 
directed  against  that  suspicion  which  Paul's  enemies  sought  to  excite;  v.  13  serves  to  cor- 
roborate what  he  had  said  in  v.  12.  Paul  makes  the  appeal,  that  in  his  epistle,  as  well  as 
in  his  whole  ministry,  nothing  could  be  found  of  a  "  fleshly  wisdom,"  ao<j>la  oapKifcr/,  which 
his  adversaries  wished  to  find  in  those  words:  he  maintains  that  all  his  words,  not  less 
than  his  actions,  bore  the  impress  of  "simplicity,"  uizXottjc. 

}  Therefore  independently  of  the  law  of  which  his  adversaries  prescribed  the  obser- 
vance. 


260  PAUL   IN   MACEDONIA. 

had  given  them  as  well  as  him  the  certain  pledge  of  this,  by  the  common 
witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  hearts.    (2  Cor.  i.  16-22.) 

'The  duty  of  vindicating  his  apostolic  character  against  the  accusa- 
tions of  his  opponents  forced  him  to  speak  much  of  himself.  The  palpa- 
bly evident  object  of  his  doing  this,  and  the  distinction  which  he  was 
always  careful  to  make  between  the  divine  power  connected  with  his 
apostolic  functions,  and  the  person  of  a  feeble  mortal  between  the  "  man 
in  Christ,"  and  the  weak  Paul,*  sufficiently  acquitted  him  of  the  charge 
of  self-conceit  and  vain-glory.  To  common  men,  who  would  measure 
everything  by  the  same  measure,  many  things  might  seem  strange  in 
Paul's  manner  of  speaking  of  himself  and  his  ministry,  so  that  they  were 
ready  to  accuse  him  of  extravagance — of  a  self-exaltation  bordering  on 
insanity.  But  what  impelled  him  to  speak  in  such  strong  terms  was  not 
personal  feeling,  but  the  inspired  consciousness  of  the  divine  power  at- 
tached to  the  gospel,  and  to  his  apostolic  calling,  which  would  triumph 
over  all  opposition.  It  was  this  consciousness  which  caused  him  to  fear 
nothing,  and  enabled  him  to  speak  with  so  much  confidence  against  his 
enemies.  Thus  the  fact  of  his  "  not  being  able  to  do  anything  of  him- 
self" redounded  in  his  view  to  the  glory  of  God.  Against  his  Judaizing 
opponents,  with  whom  arrogance  stood  in  the  place  of  power,  (2  Cor.  xi. 
21),  to  whom  he  would  willingly  appear  weak  in  that  which  they  es- 
teemed strength,  and  who,  incapable  of  understanding  the  divine  power 
in  earthen  vessels,  charged  him  with  threatening  to  do  more  than  he  was 
able  to  perform,  he  declared,  with  confidence,  that  he  would  prove  him- 
self to  be  a  genuine  apostle  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  threatenings,  and  in 
the  punishment  of  the  bad.  He  only  wished  that  he  might  have  no  op- 
portunity of  proving  this,  but  that  everything  wrong  in  the  church  might 
be  set  right  before  he  came,  and  thus  no  occasion  be  left  for  administer- 
ing punishment.  He  would  then  gladly  be  regarded  as  an  incapable  or 
not  genuine  apostle  by  the  non-fulfilment  of  his  threatenings,  provided 
only  the  Corinthians  showed  themselves  to  be  approved  Christians,  for 
all  the  power  granted  to  him  was  only  for  the  truth,  and  not  against  it; 
2  Cor.  xiii.  6,  8.f 

*  To  this  the  passage  in  2  Cor.  v.  13  refers.  "  For  whether  we  be  beside  ourselves, 
(the  inspiration  with  which  the  apostle  spoke  of  the  divine  objects  of  his  calling,  of  what 
the  power  of  God  effected  through  his  apostolic  office,  but  which  his  adversaries  treated  as 
empty  boasting,  and  ascribed  to  an  afypoovvii  or  fiavia)  it  is  to  the  glory  of  God;  or 
whether  we  be  sober  (by  which  the  apostle  spoke  of  himself  as  a  weak  mortal,  put  him- 
self on  a  level  with  the  Corinthians,  and  made  no  use  of  his  apostolic  power  and  his  privi- 
leges) it  is  for  your  welfare." 

f  Baur,  proceeding  on  the  assumption  that  the  same  affair  is  referred  to  in  2  Cor.  ii.  as 
in  1  Cor.  v.,  and  that  Paul  in  his  first  epistle  threatened  more  than  he  had  power  to  ac- 
complish, concludes  thus  (p.  329,)  "This  passage  contains  a  not  unimportant  criterion  for 
judging  of  the  alleged  miracles  of  the  apostles.  The  apostles  had  certainly  the  conscious- 
ness of  miraculous  power  in  themselves,  and  in  this  consciousness  they  could  regard  very 
distinguished  effects  of  their  agency — operations  of  a  powerful  energy — as  "  signs,  won- 
ders, and  powers,"  oj/ieia,  ripara  and  dvvdfieis.     But  as  at  that  time  in  a  definite  case. 


Paul's  journey  to  achaia.  261 

Paul  spent  the  rest  of  the  summer  and  autumn  in  Macedonia.  He 
probably  extended  his  labors  to  the  neighboring  country  of  Illyria,*  and 
then  removed  to  Achaia,  where  hp  spent  the  winter. 

Since  he  was  now  resolved,  after  his  return  from  the  journey  to  Je- 
rusalem, which  he  proposed  undertaking  at  the  beginning  of  the  spring, 
to  change  the  scene  of  his  labors  to  the  west,  and  to  visit  the  metropolis 
of  the  Roman  empire  for  the  first  time,  he  must  have  been  gratified  to 
form  a  connexion  previously  with  the  church  jn  that  city.  The  journey 
of  Phoebe,  the  deaconess  of  the  church  at  Cenchraea,  who  had  been  in- 
duced by  certain  business  affairs  to  repair  to  Rome,  gave  him  the  best 
opportunity  for  this  purpose,  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  recommended 
her  to  the  care  of  the  Roman  church. \ 

in  which  this  (consciousness)  was  so  distinctly  expressed,  a  miracle,  strictly  so  called,  was 
far  enough  from  taking  place,  just  as  little  did  this  happen  at  any  other  time."  We 
perceive  that  Dr.  Baur  consistently  with  the  principles  of  his  philosophy  must  thus  judge 
respecting  everything  distinguished  as  a  miracle,  since  these  principles  exclude  d  priori  the 
recognition  of  anything  supernatural  whatever.  But  we  cannot  consider  the  premises 
here  advanced,  and  the  conclusion  drawn  from  them,  as  correct.  For  even  if  we  grant 
the  disputed  point,  the  identity  of  the  two  cases,  still  it  will  not  be  evident  that  Paul 
ascribed  to  himself  a  power  which  he  could  not  exercise,  for  he  expressly  represents  as 
his  object,  1  Cor.  v.  5,  to  awaken  to  repentance  the  person  whom  the  judgment  was  in- 
tended to  affect,  that  through  bodily  suffering  he  might  obtain  spiritual  health.  Now  if 
that  offender  had  already  given  signs  of  repentance,  the  fulfilment  of  such  a  judgment 
must  of  course  fail,  as  Paul  in  the  passage  quoted  tells  us  that  he  would  gladly,  for  the 
good  of  the  church,  appear  as  one  who  threatened  in  vain.  Lastly,  there  appears  no  good 
reason  for  placing  the  extraordinary  operation  in  question  under  the  same  category  as 
other  miracles.  Christ  himself  did  not  perform  miracles  of  judgment,  and  in  no  passage 
has  he  given  such  power  to  the  apostles,  as  is  the  case  with  the  other  miracles,  to  the  ac- 
complishment of  which  Paul  refers  in  his  epistles  as  indisputable.  And  his  language  here 
is  more  credible  in  proportion  as  such  outward  miracles  appeared  little  in  his  eyes  in  com- 
parison with  the  one  internal  miracle,  1  Cor.  i.  22,  23 ;  ii.  4. 

*  In  2  Cor.  x.  14-16,  Paul  seems  to  mark  Achaia  as  the  extreme  limit  of  his  labors  in 
preaching  the  gospel ;  (this  indeed  does  not  follow  from  the  d%pi  nai  i/iuv,  since  &xpi  in 
itself  does  not  denote  a  fixed  or  exclusive  limit,  see  Rom.  v.  13,  though  Paul  sometimes 
uses  the  word  in  this  latter  sense  also,  Gal.  iii.  19:  iv.  2;  and  this  certainly  seems  to  be 
the  meaning  here  from  the  comparison  of  the  three  verses  in  connexion ;)  on  the  other 
hand,  in  Rom.  xv.  19,  Illyria  is  thus  marked.  But  it  does  not  certaiuly  follow  from  this 
last  passage  that  Paul  himself  had  preached  the  gospel  in  Illyria ;  possibly  he  only  men- 
tioned this  as  the  extreme  limit  which  had  been  reached  through  his  instrumentality. 

f  It  is  here,  of  course,  taken  for  granted,  that  the  16th  chapter  belongs  with  the  whole 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  in  modern  times  has  been  again  disputed  by  Schulz 
in  the  Studien  und  Xritiken,  vol.  ii.  p.  609 ;  -but,  as  it  appears  to  me,  on  insufficient 
grounds.  It  may  excite  surprise  that  Paul  should  salute  so  many  individuals  in  a  church 
to  which  he  was  personally  a  stranger,  and  that  we  find  among  them  relations  and  old 
friends  of  the  apostle  from  Palestine,  and  other  parts  of  the  East.  But  we  must  recollect, 
that  Rome  was  always  the  rendezvous  of  persons  from  all  parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  a 
fact  which  Athenaeus  has  stated  so  strongly,  Deipnosoph.  i.  36,  tt/v  'Pu/xaiuv  -nhliv  Itilto- 
fifjv  r//c  otKovfiivTjg,  hv  y  awiSelv  iotiv  ndoas  rue  nuXeic  Idpvusvas,  (an  epitome  of  the  hab- 
itable world  is  the  city  of  the  Romans,  in  which,  at  once,  may  be  seen  all  the  cities  estab- 
lished,}—such  as  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Nicomedia,  and  Athens  —  icai  yap  uAa  ra  Wvr)  dtlpouf 
avrodi  avvuKi-arai,  (for  truly  all  nations  dwell  there  crowded  together).     Paul  might  easily 


262  PAUL   IN   ACHAT  A. 

It  is  not  improbable  (see  pp.  193,  250,)  that,  at  an  early  period,  the 
seed  of  the  gospel  had  been  brought  by  Jewish  Christians  to  the  Jews 
at  Rome,  as  at  that  time,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  salutations  at  the 
end  of  the  epistle,  persons  who  were  among  the  oldest  Christians  lived 

have  become  personally  acquainted  at  Ephesus  and  Corinth  with  many  Christians  from 
Rome,  or  learned  particulars  respecting  them.  Among  those  whom  he  salutes  were  per- 
sons of  the  family  of  Narcissus,  who  was,  as  is  known,  a  freed-man  of  the  Emperor  Claudius, 
and  who  under  that  emperor  was  highly  esteemed  at  Rome.  That  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
were  again  in  Rome,  that  a  part  of  the  church  assembled  in  their  house,  and  that  a  num- 
ber of  years  afterwards,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  2d  Epistle  to  Timothy,  they  are  to  be 
found  at  Ephesus, — all  this,  from  what  we  have  before  remarked,  is  not  so  surprising.  Tho 
warning  against  the  Judaizing  teachers,  xvi.  17,  who  published  another  doctrine  than  what 
they  had  received  (from  the  disciples  of  the  apostle),  agrees  perfectly  with  what  is  said  in 
the  14th  chapter,  and  this  harmonises  well  with  what  we  may  infer  from  the  epistle  itself, 
in  reference  to  the  state  of  the  Roman  church.  The  passage  in  xvi.  19  agrees  also  with 
i.  8,  and  the  comparison  confirms  the  belief  that  they  both  belong  to  the  same  epistle. 
Baur,  in  his  Essay  before  quoted,  (see  the  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  for  1836,  3d  No.,  p.  144  ft.) 
has  endeavored  to  prove  the  spuriousness  of  the  last  two  chapters.  He  believes  that,  in 
the  15th  chapter  especially,  he  can  trace  a  later  writer  attached  to  Pauline  principles,  who 
thought  that,  in  order  to  justify  Paul,  and  to  bring  about  a  union  between  the  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians,  it  was  necessary  to  make  some  additions  to  the  epistle  ;  but  I  cannot 
perceive  the  validity  of  the  evidence  adduced  by  this  acute  critic.  Paul  was  probably 
prevented  when  he  had  finished  the  14th  chapter,  from  continuing  the  epistle  to  the  close. 
And  when  he  took  it  up  again  where  he  left  oft",  and  looked  back  on  what  he  had  last  writ- 
ten, he  felt  himself  impelled  to  add  something  on  the  theme  of  which  he,  had  last  treated, 
the  harmony  between  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  Christians  in  the  Roman  church,  a  passage 
similar  to  one  in  2  Cor.  ix.  His  object  was,  on  the  one  hand,  to  check  the  free-thinking 
Gentile  Christians  from  self-exaltation  in  relation  to  their  weaker  Jewish  brethren  in  the 
faith  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  remind  the  Jewish  Christians  that  the  admission  of  the 
Gentiles  into  a  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God  was  by  no  means  an  infringement  of 
the  rights  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  that  it  was  in  unison  with  the  predictions  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  exhorts  them,  xv.  7,  to  receive  one  another  mutually  as  members  of  the 
same  kingdom  of  God,  though  with  a  special  reference  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  to  whom 
Paul  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  particularly  addressed  himself,  if  we  follow  the  best 
accredited  reading,  "you,"  ifidg.  He  then  states  the  reasons  why  the  Gentiles  had  especial 
cause  to  praise  God,  to  be  thankful  and  humble,  since  God  had  in  so  unexpected  a 
manner  brought  them  to  a  participation  of  his  kingdom,  who  previously  knew  nothing  of 
it,  and  who  had  no  hopes  of  this  kind,  (a  train  of  thought  which  he  introduces  elsewhere, 
Ephes.  ii.  12,  and  in  several  other  passages  of  the  same  epistle).  He  states  antithetically 
that  God,  by  the  sending  of  Christ  to  the  Jews,  manifested  his  faithfulness,  since  thus  he 
had  fulfilled  the  promise  made  to  the  fathers;  but  had  manifested  his  mercy  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, since  he  had  called  to  a  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  those  among  whom 
the  foundation  of  this  kingdom  had  not  been  laid,  and  to  whom  no  promises  had  been 
given.  Such  a  rhetorical  antithesis  is  of  course  not  perfectly  strict,  but  partial,  and  is  of  a 
kind  frequently  employed  by  Paul.  Then  he  says :  the  Old  Testament  also  declares,  that 
the  Messsiah  will  extend  his  saving  efficiency  to  the  Gentiles.  Therein  lies,  therefore,  a 
limitation  of  what  he  had  before  said,  for  it  is  clear  from  this  that  while  God  shewed  his 
mercy  to  the  Gentiles  he  at  the  same  time  thereby  verified  his  faithfulness  also.  In  all 
this,  we  find  nothing  un-Pauline,  nothing  foreign  to  the  object  of  this  epistle.  It  is  im- 
possible that  Paul  could  intend  to  close  with  the  14th  chapter,  but  according  to  the  usual 
style  of  the  Pauline  epistles,  a  conclusion  must  necessarily  follow,  which  these  last  two 
chaoters  furnish. 


EPISTLE   TO    THE    ROMAN'S.  '203 

at  Rome ;  but  these  certainly  did  not  form  the  main  body  of  the  church, 
for  the  greater  part  evidently  consisted  of  Christians  of  Gentile  descent, 
to  whom  the  gospel  had  been  published  by  men  of  the  Pauline  school, 
independently  of  the  Mosaic  law,  to  whom  Paul,  as  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles,  felt  himself  called  to  write,  and  whom,  in  the  consciousness  of 
this  relation  to  them,  he  could  address  with  greater  freedom.  How 
could  Paul,  from  his  call  to  publish  the  gospel  to  all  the  nations  of  tha 
world,  have  inferred  his  call  to  announce  the  doctrine  of  salvation  to  the 
Romans,  (Rom.  i-.  5,  6,)  if  he  had,  not  believed  that  those  to  whom  his 
epistle  was  especially  addressed  were  Gentiles?  For  the  Jews,  whether 
living  among  the  Romans  or  Greeks,  always  considered  themselves  as 
belonging,  not  to  the  dva,  edvi],  to  the  "Gentiles,"  but  to  the  one  bj>, 
the  /lade,  the  "  people"  in  the  "  dispersion,"  Staanopd.  In  reference  to 
them,  Paul  could  only  have  spoken  of  being  sent  to  one  nation.*  How 
could  he  say  (Rom.  i.  13)  that  he  wished  to  come  to  Rome  in  order  "  to 
have  some  fruit "  there,  "  even  as  among  other  Gentiles,"  by  the  publi- 
cation of  the  gospel,  if  he  had  not  been  writing  principally  to  persons 
belonging  to  the  Gentiles,  among  whom  alone  he  had  hitherto  been  wont 
to  gain  fruit?  Verse  14  shows  very  clearly,  also,  that  he  was  very  far 
from  thinking  of  the  Jews.  What  else  could  have  occasioned  him  to 
mention,  that  as  elsewhere,  so  also  in  the  metropolis  of  the  civilized 
world,  he  was  not  ashamed  to  publish  the  gospel  ?  For  in  reference  to 
the  Jews,  it  could  make  no  great  difference  whether  he  met  with  them  at 
Jerusalem  or  at  Rome  ;  the  same  obstacle  to  their  believing  the  gospel 
existed  in  both  places,  the  obstacle  which  made  Jesus  the  Crucified  an 
offence  to  them.  It  cannot  be  concluded  from  his  specially  addressing 
the  Gentile  Christians  in  xi.  13,  that  the  epistle  was  not,  as  a  whole,  also 
intended  for  them ;  for  in  any  case — since  there  were  Jews  in  the  church, 
though  they  formed  the  minority — when  he  expressed  anything  which 
was  applicable  only  to  the  Gentile  members,  it  was  needful  that  he  should 
thus  distinguish  it.  If  we  suppose  those  Jewish  Christians  who  taught 
the  continued  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law  to  have  formed  the  original 
body  of  the  church,  it  will  not  be  easy  to  explain  how  Gentile  Christians 
who  adopted  the  Pauline  principles  (and  who  must  evidently  have  been 
a  minority),  could  join  themselves  to  such.  But  it  is  altogether  differ- 
ent, if  we  suppose  this  church  to  have  been  constituted  like  others  of  the 
Gentile  Christians  of  which  we  have  before  spoken.     Moreover,  in  the 

*  This  is  contrary  to  Baur,  p.  117 ;  nor  is  it  set  aside  by  what  he  says  in  his  Paulus, 
p.  378.  "While  he  asserts,  that  "  the  Jews  living  in  Rome  were  regarded  by  him  no  longer 
as  Jews,  but  as  Romans,"  he  adds,  "so  much  the  more  if,  what  I  am  far  from  denying, 
there  were  Gentile  Christians  among  them."  But  it  must  be  supposed,  that  Paul, when  he 
wrote  the  epistle,  thought  particularly  either  of  the  one  or  the  other.  A  quite  different 
class  of  references  must  have  suggested  themselves  to  the  apostle,  in  writing  to  a  church 
of  which  the  most  influential  part  were  Jews,  from  those  he  would  have  employed  in 
writiug  to  one  consisting  mainly  of  Gentiles.  Therefore  the  argument  aga'nst  Baur'a 
position  ia  not  weakened  by  the  addition  he  has  here  made  to  it. 


264  PAUL   IN    ACHAIA. 

Neronian  persecution,  tlie  Christian  church  appears  as  a  new  sect  hated 
by  the  people,  a  genus  tertium,  of  whom,  since  they  were  opposed  to  all 
the  forms  of  religion  hitherto  in  existence,  the  people  were  disposed  to 
credit  the  worst  reports.  But  this  could  not  have  been  the  case  if  Juda- 
ism had  been  the  predominant  element  in  the  Roman  church.  The  Chris- 
tians would  then  have  been  scarcely  distinguished  from  the  Jews,  and  it 
was  not  unusual  to  pay  much  attention  to  the  internal  religious  disputes 
of  the  Jews.  In  the  controversy  with  the  churches  in  Lesser  Asia,*  the 
bishops  of  Rome  were  opposers  of  the  Jewish  Christian  Easter  ;  this 
was  closely  connected  with  the  formation  of  the  Christian  cultus  on 
Pauline  principles,  and  an  appeal  could  here  be  made  to  an  ancient  tradi- 
tion. To  the  marks  of  an  anti- Jewish  tendency  belongs  also  the  custom 
of  fasting  on  the  Sabbath.  The  opinion  that  this  anti-Jewish  tendency 
arose  as  a  reaction  against  an  earlier  Judaizing  tendency,  is  at  variance 
with  what  has  been  said,  and  is  also  in  itself  unhistorical ;  for  since  at  a 
later  period  we  see  the  hierarchical  element  (which  is  decidedly  Jewish, 
and  favorable  rather  than  otherwise  to  Judaism),  peculiarly  prominent 
precisely  in  the  Roman  church,  so  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  exactly 
at  this  time  a  reaction  should  be  produced  against  Judaism,f  arising  from 
primitive  Christian  consciousness  and  the  Pauline  spirit.'  In  the  work  of 
Hermas,  we  recognise  indeed  a  conception  of  Christianity  much  more 
according  to  James  than  according  to  Paul,  (and  yet  not  throughout  and 
entirely  Judaizing,)  but  we  know  too  little  of  the  relation  in  which  the 
author  of  this  book  stood  to  the  whole  Roman  church,  to  determine  any- 
thing respecting  the  prevailing  tendency  of  the  latter.  This  remark 
applies  more  strongly  to  the  Clementines  of  which  the  origin  is  so  uncer- 
tain, and  which  by  their  leading  sentiments  is  essentially  distinguished 
from  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  although  some  points  of  affinity  exist  in 
the  two  works.  In  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world,  where  the  most 
diverse  kinds  of  religion  from  all  countries  were  tolerated,  the  different 
Christian  sects  would  soon  seek  a  settlement,  and  establish  themselves. 
We,  therefore,  are  not  justified  in  saying  of  every  sect  which  we  see 
arising  out  of  the  bosom  of  the  Roman  church,  that  it  proceeded  from 
the  religious  tendency  that  originally  predominated  in  it.  This  applies 
particularly  to  the  Monarchians,  who  yet  could  not  all  be  referred  to  a 
Judaizing  element;  for  a  Praxeas,  of  whom  we  certainly  know  that  he 
found  a  point  of  connexion  in  the  whole  Roman  church — which  by  no 
means  can  be  asserted  of  other  kinds  of  Monarchians — stood,  by  his 
peculiar  conceptions  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  self-revealing  and 
revealed  God,  in  most  direct  opposition  to  the  Judaizing  point  of*  view,  in 
many  respects  still  more  than  was  at  that  time  the  case  with  the  common 

*  See  specially  the  letter  of  Irenseus  in  Eusebius,  v.  24. 

■j-  Dr.  Baur,  whose  views  I  am  here  opposing,  in  his  Essay  against  Rothe,  on  the  Origin 
of  Episcopacy  in  the  Christian  church,  (Tiibinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Theologie,  1838,  part  iii.  p. 
141),  endeavors  to  prove  that  this  reaction  agai.ist  Judaism,  supposing  that  to  have  Origin-  i 
ally  predominated,  took  pla^e  at  a  later  period  in  the  Roman  church. 


EPISTLE   TO   THE    ROMANS.  265 

church  doctrine  of  Subordination.  But  when  the  Artemonites  appealed 
to  their  agreement  with  the  earlier  Roman  bishops,  we  cannot  accept 
this  as  historical  evidence.  Sects  have  always  had  an  interest  to  claim 
high  antiquity  for  their  doctrines,  and  the  Artemonites  could  easily  make 
use  for  their  purpose  of  many  indefinite  expressions  of  earlier  doctrinal 
statements.  They  appealed  generally  to  the  antiquity  of  their  doctrine 
in  the  church,  and  yet  we  know  that  Re  ancient  hymns  and  the  apolo- 
gies could  with  justice  be  adduced  against  them  as  witnesses  for  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  We  consider,  therefore,  the  opinion 
as  well  grounded,  that  the  Roman  church  was  formed  principally  from 
the  stock  of  Gentile  Christians,  and  that  the  Pauline  form  of  doctrine 
originally  prevailed  among  them.* 

In  this  church,  the  state  of  affairs  was  similar  to  that  which  for  the 
most  part  existed  in  churches  where  the  Gentile-Christian  element, 
though  mingled  with  the  Jewish-Christian,  predominated.  The  Jewish 
Christians  could  not  bring  themselves  to  acknowledge  the  Gentiles,  who 
neglected  the  ceremonial  law,  as  altogether  their  equals  in  relation  to  the 
kingdom  of  God ;  the  Gentile  Christians  also  still  retained  those  feelings  of 
contempt  with  which  they  were  wont  to  contemplate  the  Jews,  and  the 
manner  in  which  the  greater  part  of  the  Jews  opposed  the  publication 
of  the  gospel,  confirmed  them  in  this  temper  of  mind  ;  Rom.  xi.  17,  18. 

Paul  in  this  epistle  lays  before  the  church,  which  he  had  not  yet 
taught  personally,  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  gospel ;  he  wished, 
as  he  himself  says,  Rom.  xv.  15,  to  recall  to  their  remembrance}  what 

*  The  testimony  of  Hilarius  (the  so-called  Ambrosian),  to  which  Baur  appeals  as  his- 
torical evidence,  we  certainly  dare  not  estimate  too  highly ;  for  this  writer  of  the  second 
half  of  the  fourth  century  could  hardly  have  made  use  of  historical  sources  on  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Roman  church  to  which  Paul  wrote.  He  had  scarcely  any  oth  >r  sources 
of  information  than  we  have;  his  testimony  appears  to  have  been  merely  deduced  from 
this  epistle  according  to  his  own  interpretation  of  it. 

f  It  is  generally  supposed  that  the  "  iD  some  sort,"  dnb  fiepovc,  in  this  verse,  relates  to 
some  particular  passages  of  the  epistle,  which  might  seem  to  be  written  in  too  bold  a  tone. 
"We  might  admit  this,  if  any  such  severe  censure  of  the  faults  of  the  church  were  to  be  met 
with  in  this  epistle  as  appear  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  In  this  case,  wo 
might  suppose  that  Paul  would  think  proper  to  apologise  for  such  harsh  expressions,  as 
proceeding  from  one  who  was  not  personally  known  to  the  church.  But  such  animadver- 
sions on  the  church  we  do  not  find  in  this  epistle ;  and  in  all  that  he  says  respecting  the 
state  of  the  Gentile  world,  to  which  they  belonged  before  their  conversion,  as  well  as  in 
all  that  he  says  to  warn  them  against  self-exaltation,  I  can  find  nothing  which  would  occasion 
such  an  apology  on  the  part  of  such  a  man  as  Paul.  Hence,  I  cannot  help  considering  the 
"  in  some  sort,"  divo  /xepovg,  only  as  qualifying  the  "  more  boldly,"  ToXfir/pore/wv,  or  that  it 
relates  to  whnt  follows.  Paul  places  the  boldness  in  this,  that  he,  though  personally  un- 
known to  the  church,  ventures  to  step  forward  as  its  teacher,  to  write  to  them  such  an 
epistle  in  which  he  appears  to  wish  to  announce  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  as  if  it  were  en- 
tirely new  to  them.  But  he  explains  his  design,  that  it  was  only  to  "  put  them  in  mind" 
of  what  they  had  already  heard,  and  he  believed  himself  to  bo  justified  in  so  doing  in  vir- 
tue of  that  call  by  divine  grace  through  which  ho  had  been  commissioned  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  He  even  qualifies  the  "  putting  them  in  mind"  by  the  prefixing  of 
tni,  thus  representing  it  as  something  accessory,  and  not  absolutely  required.     In  these 


266  PAUL   12*   ACHAIA. 

had  been  announced  to  them  as  the  doctrine  of  Christianity,  and  to  tes- 
tify that  this  was  the  genuine  Christian  truth,  which  alone  could  satisfy 
the  religious  wants  of  human  nature,  and  exhorted  them  not  to  allow 
themselves  to  be  led  astray  by  any  strange  doctrine.  This  epistle  may 
therefore  specially  serve  to  inform  us,  what  was  in  Paul's  estimation  the 
essence  of  the  gospel. 

He  begins  with  assuring  them  that  shame  could  not  have  kept  him 
back  from  publishing  the  gospel  in  the  capital  of  the  civilised  world  ;  for 
he  had  never  had  occasion  to  be  ashamed  of  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel, 
since  everywhere,  among  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  it  had  shown  itself 
capable  of  working  with  divine  power  for  the  salvation  of  men,  if  they 
would  only  believe  ;  by  this  doctrine  they  all  obtained  what  all  alike 
needed, — that  which  was  essential  to  the  salvation  of  men, — the  means 
by  which  they  might  be  brought  from  a  state  of  estrangement  from  God 
in  sin,  to  become  holy  before  God.  In  order  to  establish  this,  it  was, 
necessary  for  the  apostle  to  show  that  all,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  were  in 
need  of  this  means.  He  must  endeavor  to  lead  them  both  to  a  conscious- 
ness of  their  sinfulness  and  guilt,  and  to  take  notice  of  that  which  might 
hinder  either  party,  according  to  their  respective  points  of  view,  from  at- 
taining this  consciousness,  the  self-deceptions  and  sophisms,  which  could 
prevent  their  recognition  of  the  truths  which  he  announced.  He  had 
then  to  point  out  to  the  Gentiles  that  their  consciences  testified  against 
them,  that  they  could  not  excuse  themselves  in  their  sins  by  pleading 
ignorance  of  God  and  his  law ;  he  had  to  assure  the  Jews,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  that  law,  in  the  possession  of  which  they  were  so  proud,  could 
only  utter  a  sentence  of  condemnation  against  them  as  its  violators  ;  he 
exposed  their  self-delusion,  in  thinking  that  by  the  works  of  the  law  such 
as  they  could  perform,  or  in  virtue  of  their  descent  from  the  theocratic 
nation,  they  could  appear  as  holy  before  God. 

After  pointing  out  that  both  parties  were  equally  in  need  of  the 
means  of  salvation,  the  object  he  had  in  view  led  him  to  develop  the 
manner  in  which  man,  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  might  become  holy  be- 
fore God,  and  to  exhibit  the  blessed  consequences  that  followed  from  this 
new  relation  to  God  ;  and  in  this  development,  he  takes  pains,  as  is  evi- 
dent in  various  passages,  so  to  influence  the  two  parts  of  which  the 
church  at  Rome  consisted,  the  Gentile  and  the  Jewish  Christians,  that 
uniting  in  an  equally  humble  acknowledgment  of  the  grace  to  which  they 
were  indebted  for  their  salvation,  neither  one  might  exalt  itself  above 
the  other;  he  closes  the  whole  development  with  extolling  that  grace, 
to  which  all  stood  in  the  same  relation,  being  equally  in  need  of  deliver- 
ance, and  which  all  must  at  last  unite  in  glorifying.* 

In  the  practical  exhortations  which  form  the  last  part  of  this  epistle, 


words,  in  the  interpretation  of  which  I  cannot  agree  with  Baur,  I  can  detect  nothing  un- 
Pauline.     On  the  contrary,  I  find  here  the  same  Pauline  mode  of  address  as  in  Rom.  i.  12 
*  See  chapter  xi.  33-36. 


EPISTLE   TO    THE    ROMANS.  207 

the  wisdom  is  apparent  with  which  Paul  apprehended  the  relations  in 
which  the  new  converts  to  Christianity  were  placed,  anticipated  the 
errors  into  which  they  were  likely  to  be  seduced,  and  endeavored  to  sug- 
gest the  best  preservatives  against  their  influence.  The  seditous  spirit 
of  the  Jews,  which  refused  to  acknowledge  the  legitimacy  of  any  Gen- 
tile government  (see  my  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  37,)  could  not  find 
ready  entrance  into  the  Church  at  Rome,  since  the  majority  of  its  mem- 
bers, being  Gentile  Christians,  were  not  exposed  to  infection  on  this 
side.  But  similar  errors,  from  a  misunderstanding  of  Christian  truth, 
might  easily  arise  among  them,  as  actually  happened  at  a  later  period. 
Accustomed  to  consider  themselves  as  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
in  opposition  to  the  heathen  wjorld,  they  were  in  danger  of  giving  an 
outward  form  to  this  opposition,  which  properly  belonged  to  the  inter- 
nal disposition,  and  thus  exciting  a  hostile  tendency  against  all  existing 
civil  institutions,  which  would  be  looked  upon  as  all  belonging  to  th6 
kingdom  of  the  evil  spirit.  With  the  consciousness  of  belonging  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  a  misapprehension  arising  from  carnal  views  might  be 
connected,  that  those  who  were  destined  to  rule  hereafter  in  the  kino-, 
dom  of  the  Messiah,  need  not  even  in  the  present  life  submit  to  worldly 
authority.  Such  a  carnal  misapprehension  might  easily  connect  itself 
with  the  doctrine  of  Christian  freedom,  and  the  apostle  on  other  occa- 
sions had  thought  it  needful  to  caution  against  it ;  Gal.  v.  13.  He  wished 
to  be  beforehand  in  opposing  such  practical  errors,  which  his  knowledge 
of  human  nature  led  him  to  anticipate,  if  he  had  not  already  witnessed 
similar  ones;  accordingly,  he  strictly  enjoined  on  the  Roman  Christians, 
that  as  they  ought  to  consider  the  institution  of  civil  government  gener- 
ally as  a  divine  ordinance,  instituted  for  a  definite  object  in  the  plan  of 
Providence  ;*  so  they  should  judge  of  governments  then  existing  from 
this  point  of  view,  and  demean  themselves  conformably  to  it. 

At  the  close,  he  notices  a  special  practical  difference  in  the  church. 
But  it  may  be  disputed  in  what  light  we  are  to  view  it.  As  in  the  four- 
teenth chapter  he  places  in  opposition  those  who  eat,  and  those  who  eat 
not,  and  by  the  latter  apparently  intends  those  who  scrupled  to  eat  flesh 
and  drink  wine,  and  confined  themselves  to  a  vegetable  diet,  (compare 
v.  2,  and  v.  21,)  some  have  been  led  to  conclude,f  that  in  this  church  a 
strong  ascetic  tendency,  entirely  forbidding  animal  food  and  strong 
drink,  had  found  an  entrance,  similar  to  the  doctrine  of  the  later  Encra- 


*  It  was  by  no  means  the  apostles's  design  in  that  passage  to  develop  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  the  reciprocal  duties  of  rulers  and  subjects  ;  but  he  pursues  only  that  one  marked 
antithetical  idea  to  warn  Christians  against  the  misapprehension  alluded  to,  and  thus  leaves 
all  other  topics  untouched,  which  otherwise  would  naturally  fall  under  discussion. 

•j-  This  view,  with  various  modifications,  has  been  brought  forward  by  Eichorn,  in  his 
Introduction  to  this  epistle  in  his  general  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  and  by  Baur 
in  hi3  Essay  on  this  epistle;  by  the  latter  in  connection  with  his  view  of  a  predominant 
Jewish  Christian  tendency  hi  the  Roman  church,  allied  to  the  later  Ebionitism,  and  con- 
taining its  germ. 


268  PAUL   IN   ACHAIA. 

tites.  Such  a  tendency,  foreign  indeed,  originally,  to  the  Hebrew  axA 
Grecian  religious  systems,  had  in  that  age  spread  itself  in  various  forms, 
bo^h  among  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  owing  to  the  change  produced  in  the 
spirit  of  the  nations  by  the  breaking  up  of  old  forms  of  thought,  and 
it  might  have  effected  a  junction  with  Christianity,  by  a  mistaken  view 
of  the  antagonism  between  the  spirit  and  the  flesh,  and  of  the  opposition 
between  the  world  and  Christianity.  But  how  can  what  Paul  says  on 
individual  cases,  be  referred  to  persons  under  the  influence  of  this  ten- 
dency? "Let  not  him  that  eateth"  (he  says  in  v.  3),  "despise  him  that 
eateth  not;  and  let  not  him  who  eateth  not, judge  him  that  eateth;"  that 
is,  not  condemn,  not  disallow  his  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
for  persons  of  this  ascetic  tendency  did  not,  properly  speaking,  condemn 
those  who  would  not  consent  to  such  abstinence,  but  they  believed  that 
they  were  inferior  to  themselves,  and  not  so  far  advanced  in  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  spiritual  life.  Paul  therefore  ought  rather  to  have  said,  Let 
not  such  a  one  despise  him  that  eateth. 

Or  we  must  assume  that  these  persons  had  gone  so  far  as  to  declare 
the  eating  of  flesh  to  be  absolutely  sinful.  But  this  they  could  have  said 
only  on  the  principles  of  a  certain  dualistic  theosophy,  which  viewed  God 
not  as  the  origin  of  all  creatures ;  and  if  Paul  had  met  with  such  a  view, 
he  would  certainly  not  have  treated  it  with  so  much  tolerance,  but  have 
felt  it  his  duty  to  combat  it  strenuously,  as  utterly  opposed  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  Christianity.  Nor  would  the  exhortation  addressed  to  the 
other  side  not  to  despise  such  a  one,  have  been  suitable  in  this  case  ;  for. 
persons  of  this  tendency  had  nothing  which  exposed  them  to  contempt, 
but  it  was  rather  to  be  feared  that,  by  such  a  stricter  mode  of  living, 
they  would  be  held  in  greater  respect  than  was  their  due.  Besides,  how 
could  Paul  say  of  such  a  one  in  v.  6,  "  He  that  eateth  not,  to  the  Lord 
he  eateth  not,  and  giveth  God  thanks  ?"  Such  persons  lacked  even  the 
disposition  to  thank  God  for  all  the  gifts  which  he  had  granted  for 
human  subsistence.  How  could  he,  in  reference  to  such  a  case,  say  in 
v.  21,  "  It  is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh  nor  to  drink  wine,  in  order  to 
give  no  offence  to  a  brother  ?"  It  could  have  given  no  offence  to  one 
who  was  zealous  in  practising  such  ascetic  severity,  if  he  saw  another 
brother  living  with  less  strictness.  But  if  other  Christians  believed  that 
they  ought  to  follow  his  example,  he  might  to  his  injury  be  confirmed  in 
his  delusion,  that  such  a  mode  of  living  had  something  in  it  excellent  or 
meritorious.  Least  of  all  could  we  suppose  that  Paul  would  treat  persons 
of  this  sort  simply  as  weak,  and  show  them  so  much  indulgence,  without 
combating  more  decisively  the  principle  that  lay  at  the  basis  of  their  error. 

And  if  we  do  not  assume  that  this  principle  was  an  avowed  dualism 
which  he  must  have  combated,  yet,  on  any  supposition,  he  could  not 
have  acted  with  so  much  mildness  and  forbearance  towards  an  ascetic 
arrogance  of  this  kind,  which  was  equally  in  diametric  opposition  to  his 
doctrine  of  justification  and  to  the  essence  of  Christian  humility.  Of 
6nch  a  perversion  of  religious  sentiment,  it  could  not  be  expected  that  it 


EPISTLE   TO    THE    KOMAXS.  2G9 

would  gradually  be  overcome  by  the  progressive  development  of  faith  as 
the  root  of  the  whole  Christian  life ;  but  it  was  rather  to  be  feared,  that 
a  principle  so  alien  to  the  Christian  life,  and  so  much  favored  by  cer- 
tain mental  tendencies  of  the  time,  would  gather  increasing  strength, 
and  injure  more  and  more  the  healthy  development  of  Christianity  ;  a 
result  which  we  actually  observe  in  several  appearances  of  this  kind  in 
the  following  age.  How  very  differently  does  Paul  speak  against  such  a 
tendency  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  !  Evidently  the  persons  towards 
whom  Paul  commends  forbearance,  were  those  who  distinguished  cer- 
tain days  as  in  a  special  sense  dedicated  to  God,  and  who  could  not  yet 
bring  themselves  to  the  Christian  point  of  view,  that  all  days  ought  in 
like  manner  to  be  dedicated  to  God.  We  must  here  recognise  the  exer- 
cise of  Jewish  principles,  (which,  since  they  had  their  indisputable  right 
in  the  development  of  religious  truth,  and  conld  not  be  altogether  set 
aside  by  a  single  effort,  Paul,  unless  their  claims  were  arrogantly  set 
forth,  always  treated  with  indulgence)  and  we  shall  find  sufficient  reason 
for  referring  the  question  of  abstinence  to  the  same  tendency.  "We  must 
think,  therefore,  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  who  were  still  strict  observers 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  not  only  in  keeping  certain  days,  but  also  in  refrain- 
ing from  certain  kinds  of  food.  We  shall  be  less  surprised  at  this,  if  we 
recollect  that  generally  the  Christians  of  Jewish  descent,  particularly 
those  of  Palestine,  when  they  lived  at  Rome,  adhered  to  their  former 
Jewish  mode  of  life.  But  in  the  Mosaic  laws  relative  to  food,  there  was 
nothing,  however,  that  could  occasion  a  scruple  about  eating  flesh  or 
drinking  wine,  v.  21.  Or  we  must  assume  that  Paul  spoke  here  only 
hypothetically  and  hyperbolically,  without  thinking  of  a  case  which  might 
really  occur  under  existing  circumstances,  although  this  is  not  the  most 
probable  supposition,  judging  from  his  mode  of  expressing  himself. 

Further,  if  we  think  of  those  Jewish  Christians  who  believed  that 
the  Mosaic  laws  respecting  food  were  still  obligatory,  it  is  entirely  clear 
why  Paul  must  admonish  the  Gentile  Christians,  who  were  fettered  by 
no  such  scruples,  not  to  despise  their  weaker  Jewish  brethren  on  account 
of  their  scrupulosity,  nor  lead  them  to  act  against  their  consciences,  by 
working  on  their  feelings  of  shame.  But  would  he  have  expressed  him- 
self so  mildly,  if  these  Jewish  Christians  had  ventured  to  condemn  others 
who  partook  of  food  which  they  held  to  be  prohibited  ?  In  this  case, 
we  should  have  to  suppose  it  to  be  the  opinion  of  these  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, that  the  Mosaic  law  was  binding  on  Gentile  Christians,  and  that 
without  its  observance  they  could  not  be  partakers  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  But  we  know  how  emphatically  Paul  always  expressed  himself 
against  those  who  maintained  such  a  sentiment,  and  in  doing  so,  invali- 
dated his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone.  In  addition — and  on 
this  point  we  must  lay  still  greater  weight — Paul  exhorts  the  strong  in 
faith  and  the  unscrupulous,  to  take  into  consideration  the  necessities  of  the 
weak,  and  rather  to  refrain  from  food,  which  they  could  partake  of  with 
out  scruple,  than  give  offence  to  their  weaker  brethren.    But  how  would 


270  PAUL   IN   ACHAIA. 

it  agree  with  the  principles  of  this  apostle,  that  he  should  advise  the 
Gentile  Christians  to  make  such  a  concession,  by  which  they  would  prac- 
tically have  recognised  the  obligatory  force  of  the  Mosaic  law ;  it  was 
rather  his  custom  to  urge  on  the  Gentile  Christians  not  to  give  place  to 
the  Judaizers,  who  wished  to  compeHhem  to  the  observance  of  the  law, 
but  to  maintain  their  Christian  freedom  against  them.  In  fact,  there 
was  no  ground  for  such  an  exhortation.  The  Jewish  Christians  had  no 
cause  to  be  uneasy,  because  the  Gentile  Christians  did  not  trouble  them- 
selves about  the  Mosaic  laws  respecting  food.  By  the  stipulation  con- 
cluded on  at  the  apostolic  convention  at  Jerusalem,  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians had  been  set  at  liberty  from  every  such  restriction.  If  this  gave 
offence  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  the  offence  was  unavoidably  founded  in 
the  evangelical  truth  itself. 

We  must  therefore  think  of  something,  connected  indeed  with  the 
religious  views  of  the  Judaizers,  but  yet  something  separable  from  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law, — something  that  with  more  appearance 
of  justice  the  Jewish  Christians  might  require  of  their  Gentile  brethren, 
— something,  in  which  a  concession  to  the  weakness  of  others  might  be 
demanded  of  Gentile  Christians,  without  encroaching  on  their  Christian 
freedom.  This  could  be  nothing  else  than  abstaining  from  the  flesh  of 
animals  offered  to  idols.  With  this  alone  is  everything  in  the  passage 
compatible.  It  has  now  a  meaning  applicable  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  time,  if  we  suppose  those  persons  to  be  spoken  of  who,  in  certain 
cases,  preferred  to  abstain  altogether  from  animal  food,  and  eat  only 
herbs,  lest  they  might  unknowingly  be  in  danger  of  eating  something 
unclean  and  defiling,  the  flesh  of  idolatrous  sacrifices.  Only  in  v.  2  does 
Paul  present  the  extreme  contrast:  on  the  one  side,  a  strength  of  faith 
which  proceeds  so  far  as  to  banish  all  scruples  respecting  the  enjoyment 
of  food,  and  on  the  other  side  the  extreme  of  scrupulosity,  arising  from 
weakness  of  faith  which  would  rather  eat  no  meat  whatever,  than  run 
the  risk  of  eating  the  flesh  of  animals  offered  to  idols.  Now  it  is  clear 
also  how  Paul  could  say,  that  if  needs  be,  it  would  be  better  not  to  eat 
flesh  at  all,  nor  to  drink  wine  at  all,  than  to  disturb  the  conscience  of  a  weak 
brother.  We  need  only  recollect  that  the  heathens  accompanied  their 
sacrifices  with  libations  ;*  that  the  same  scruples  which  existed  relative 
to  the  meat  of  the  sacrifices,  would  also  arise  in  reference  to  the  wine  of 
the  libation.  But  that  the  apostle  has  not  expressly  mentioned  the  sacri- 
fices cannot  perplex  us  in  our  view  of  the  matter.  He  had  in  mind  only 
such  readers  as  would  at  once  understand  from  his  words  what  he 
meant ;  as  in  ordinary  letters,  many  things  are  not  stated  in  detail,  be- 
cause it  is  presumed  that  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  addressed  per- 
fectly understand  the  allusions. 

We  must  therefore  conceive  the  state  of  affairs  in  this  church  to  have 

*  See  the  Mishnah  in  the  treatise  rnt  H-'ay  on  idolatrous  worship,  c.  ii.  §  3,  ed.  Su- 
renhus.  P.  iv.  369.  384. 


EPISTLE   TO    THE    ROMANS.  2t. 

been  similar  to  tl'  at  in  the  Corinthian,  which  we  have  already  noticed 
Some,  like  the  free-thinking  Corinthians,  gave  themselves  no  concern 
about  the  injunction  against  meat  offered  to  idols,  and  ridiculed  the 
scrupulosity  of  the  Jewish  Christians  ;  others,  on  the  contrary,  considered 
the  eating  of  such  food  as  absolutely  sinful,  and  hence  passed  sentence 
of  condemnation  on  those  who  ventured  to  eat  everything  without  dis- 
tinction. Thus  also  some  were  still  too  much  accustomed  to  consider 
certain  days  as  peculiarly  sacred,  according  to.Jewish  observances;  those 
who  thought  more  freely,  and  looked  at  the  subject  from  the  purely  Chris- 
tian point  of  view,  were  disposed  to  make  no  I'eligious  difference  be- 
tween one  day  and  another.* 

Such  a  state  of  things  as  this  could  only  exist  in  a  community  which 
was  formed  similarly  to  the  Corinthian  church,  which  consisted  of  a  ma- 
jority of  Christians  of  Gentile  descent,  but  with  an  addition  to  the 
original  materials  of  a  subordinate  Jewish  element.f  Paul  begins  his 
exhortation,  without  particularly  designating  the  persons  he  addressed, 
yet  having  chiefly  in  view  the  more  free-thinking  Gentile  Christians, 
which  also  confirms  the  notion,  that  these  formed  the  main  body  of  the 
church.  He  declares  the  views  of  these  persons  to  be  correct  in  theory  ; 
but  as  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  he  censures  the  want  of 
Christian  love  in  them  who  so  little  regarded  what  affected  the  welfare 
of  their  weaker  brethren,  and  with  that  defect,  the  misapprehension  of 
Christian  freedom,  which  was  shown  in  their  laying  such  great  stress  on 
what  was  outward  and  in  itself  indifferent,  as  if  the  true  good  of  Chris- 
tians consisted  in  such  things,  instead  of  being  something  grounded  in 
their  inner  life,  which  would  remain  secure  whether  they  could  use  or 
not  use  these  outward  things.  The  participation  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
consisted  not  in  meat  and  drink,  (the  true  possessions  and  privileges,  the 
true  freedom  of  the  members  of  God's  kingdom  consisted  not  in  eating 
or  drinking  this  or  that,  outward  things  in  general  being  signified  by  this 
expression,)  but  in  the  participation  of  those  heavenly  possessions  of  the 
inner  man — righteousness  (in  the  Pauline  sense,  the  designation  of  the 
whole  relation  in  which  the  en  -rriareo)^  tiiitaiog  stands  to  God,)  the  heavenly 
peace  flowing  from  it,  the  happiness  of  the  divine  life,  Rom.  xiv.  17.  He 
recommends  mutual  forbearance  and  love  to  both  parties,  that  no  one 
should  judge  another,  but  each  one  should  seek  to  be  well  grounded  in 
his  own  convictions,  and  act  accordingly  ;  but  that  the  more  mature  in 
Christian  conviction  should  condescend  to  the  scruples  of  those  who  were 
not  so  far  advanced,  since  more  is  required  from  the  strong  than  from 
the  weak. 


*  See  page  158. 

f  It  agrees  with  this  view,  that  in  Rom.  xv.  7  (a  passage  closely  connected  with  what 
goes  before),  the  subject  is  the  agreement  between  Gentile  and  Jewifh  Christians ;  and 
that  Paul  in  Rom.  xvi.  17,  warns  them  against  the  common  Judaizers,  ivho  by  the  spread 
of  their  principles  endeavored  to  excite  divisions  in  tuch  mixed  cburcb.es. 


212  PAUL   IN   ACHAIA. 

After  Paul  had  spent  three  months  in  Achaia,  he  wished  to  depart 
with  the  sums  collected  for  the  poor  church  at  Jerusalem  and  thus  to 
cl^ose  his  apostolic  ministry  in  the  East.*     This  plan  w  do  wisely  formed 

*  Though  I  agree  for  the  most  part  with-  Dr.  Schneckenburger  in  what  he  says  (in  hia 
oft-mentioned  work  on  the  Acts)  on  the  intention  of  this  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  ;  yet 
I  cannot  at  all  assent  to  what  he  thinks  may  be  deduced  from  the  silence  of  the  Acts  on 
this  collection,  and  the  object  of  this  journoy,  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  which  he  has 
advanced.  I  must  also  avow  myself  opposed  to  Dr.  Baur's  views,  who,  since  his  above- 
mentioned  historico-critical  Inquiries  on  the  Object  and  Occasion  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  in  the  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift,  1836,  and  his  Dissertation  on  the  Origin  of  Episcopacy 
in  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  same  Zeitschrift,  1838,  p.  3,  proceeding  from  the  same  view 
of*  the  object  of  the  Acts,  has  gone  farther  in  his  deductions,  and  sought  to  prove  that  the 
author  of  the  Acts  misrepresented  the  facts,  and  set  them  in  a  false  light  from  a  one-sided 
conciliatory  apologetic  design;  see  his  review  of  Dr.  Schneckenburger  in  the  Jahrbuchfiir 
wissenschaftliche  Kritik.  March,  1841.  These  two  critics  are  struck  with  the  omission  of 
a  transaction  of  so  much  importance  in  the  historical  connexion  of  events,  and  hence 
believe  that  they  must  find  a  special  reason  for  it  in  the  object  which  the  author  of  the 
Acts  proposed  to  himself  in  writing  his  work.  That  is,  as  he  was  disposed  to  assume  igno- 
rance of  the  continued  division  between  the  Jews  and  Gentile  Christians,  and  always  rep- 
resents the  Jews  only,  and  not  the  Jewish  Christians,  as  adversaries  of  the  apostle,  so 
he  could  not  adduce  anything  which  might  testify  against  his  assumption,  or  which  even 
by  serving  to  remove  the  opposition  ignored  by  him,  would  also  imply  it ;  and  hence  he 
could  not  represent  this  last  journey  of  Paul  in  its  true  light.  Had  we  reason  to  expect  in 
this  age  of  the  church,  a  comprehensive  historical  representation  explaining  the  causes  and 
connexion  of  events ;  if  the  Acts  wore  the  appearance  of  such  a  work  ;  had  its  author  been 
a  Christian  Thucydides  or  Polybius — we  might  then  have  admitted  the  inference,  that 
either  he  was  at  too  great  a  distance  from  the  events  to  know  anything  of  this  collection 
and  of  the  real  object  of  his  journey,  or  that  owing  to  a  one-sided  bias,  he  had  consciously 
or  unconsciously  falsified  the  history.  But  such  a  pragmatical  point  of  view,  which  could 
exist  only  where  the  connected  development  of  events  could  be  surveyed  with  a  certain 
calmness  of  mind  and  a  certain  scientific  interest,  was  totally  foreign  to  the  stand-point  of 
Christian  history  at  this  time,  and  especially  to  that  of  the  Acts.  It  consists  of  memoirs, 
as  the  author  gave  them  from  the  sources  of  information  within  his  reach,  or  from  his  own 
recollection,  without  following  any  definite  plan.  He  mentions  the  last  journey  of  Paul 
to  Jerusalem,  on  account  of  the  serious  consequences  to  the  apostle  himself,  without 
reflecting  further  on  the  object  of  it,  and  so  also  passed  over  the  collection  as  being  in  thai, 
view  unimportant ;  his  interest  was  engaged  by  other  objects ;  and  reflections  which 
would  only  present  themselves  from  a  pragmatical  survey  of  history,  were  totally  absent 
from  his  thoughts.  This  bountiful  collection  connects  itself,  however,  as  a  practical  proof 
of  what  Paul  said  (Acts  xxi.  19)  of  the  success  of  his  ministry  among  the  Gentiles;  why 
should  he  have  been  intentionally  silent  respecting  it  ?  If  he  could  say  what  is  men 
tioned  in  that  passage,  without  injury  t»  the  design  imputed  to  him,  lie  could  also  say : 
The  presbyters  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  praised  God  for  kindling  such  active  brotherly 
love  in  the  hearts  of  the  believing  Gentiles.  Obviously,  moreover,  the  author  of  the  Acts, 
by  his  account  in  ch.  xxi.  21,  implies  the  continued  enmity  of  the  Jewish  Christiana 
against  Paul.  I  do  not  see,  therefore,  what  could  have  induced  him  designedly  to  have 
suppressed  earlier  facts  relating  to  it.  Besides,  in  Paul's  defence  in  Acts  xxiv.  17,  there 
is  actually  an  allusion  to  the  collection,  which  therefore  the  author  could  not  have  intended 
to  conceal.  But  if  the  Acts  had  been  a  connected  history,  or  a  narrative  from  one  source, 
this  collection,  which  is  only  mentioned  incidentally,  must  have  been  recorded  earlier  in  its 
place  in  the  regular  series  of  events.  It  is  the  greatest  perversion  (we  cannot  speak  too 
strongly)  to  use  the  want  of  historic  art  in  a  simple  book,  for  the   purpose  of  everywhera 


Paul's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  273 

by  him,  and  this  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  with  the  collection  is  tc 
be  viewed  as  marking  an  epoch  in  the  development  of  the  church,  whose 
importance  we  must  consider  more  closely.  A  year  had  passed  since  he 
had  with  great  zeal  set  this  collection  on  foot  among  the  churches  of 
Gentile  Christians  in  Asia  and  Europe,  and  it  was  of  importance  to  him 
that  it  should  be  bountiful.  He  had  already  written  to  the  Corinthian 
church,  1  Cor.  xvi.  4,  that  if  this  collection  equalled  his  wishes,  he  would 
convey  it  himself  to  Jerusalem.  It  was  certainly  not  merely  his  inten- 
tion to  assist  the  .poor  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  in  their  temporal  neces- 
sities ;  he  had  an  object  still  more  important  for  the  development  of  the 
church,  to  effect  a  radical  cure  of  the  breach  between  the  Jewish  and  the 
Gentile  Christians,  and  to  seal  for  perpetuity  the  unity  of  the  church. 
As  the  immediate  power  of  love  can  effect  more  to  heal  the  schism  of 
souls,  than  all  formal  conferences  in  favor  of  union,  so  the  manner  in 
which  the  Gentile  churches  evinced  their  love  and  gratitude  to  the 
mother  church,  would  accomplish  wThat  had  not  yet  been  attained  by  all 
attempts  at  union.  Paul  wished,  since  he  was  accompanied  to  Jerusalem 
by  the  messengers  of  these  churches,  to  practically  contradict  the  charges 
disseminated  against  him  by  his  Jewish  and  Judaizing  adversaries  ;  the 
proof  of  the  sympathising  and  self-sacrificing  love  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians was  to  serve  as  evidence  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  who  had  imbibed 
prejudices  against  them,  of  what  could  be  effected  by  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  independently  of  the  law  of  Moses;  so  that  they  would  be 
obliged  to  acknowledge  the  operation  of  God's  Spirit  among  these  Avhom 
they  had  always  been  indisposed  to  receive  as  brethren  in  the  faith. 
Paul  himself  plainly  indicates  this  to  have  been  his  chief  object  in  this 
collection  and  journey,  (2  Cor.  ix.  12 — 15)  ;  that  this  service  of  love  was 
not  only  to  relieve  the  wants  of  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem,  but 
to  excite  many  hearts  to  gratitude  to  God ;  when  they  saw  how 
the  faith  of  Gentile  Christians  had  verified  itself  by  this  act  of  kindness, 
they  would  feel  compelled  to  praise  God  for  this  practical  testimony  to 
the  gospel,  and  through  the  manner  in  which  the  grace  of  God  had  shown 
its  efficacy  among  them,  being  filled  with  love  to  them,  they  would  make 
them  objects  of  their  intercessions.  A  reciprocal  communion  of  prayer 
in  thanksgiving  and  intercession,  wras  always  considered  as  the  mark  and 
seal  of  genuine  Christian  brotherhood  ;  he  therefore  wished  to  bring 
about  such  a  union  of  heart  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians. 
Before  he  extended  his  labors  for  the  spread  of  the  church  in  other  lands, 
he  was  anxious  for  the  security  and  stability  of  the  work  of  which  the 
foundation  had  been  already  laid  ;  but  which  was  exposed  to  the  greatest 


scenting  out  with  the  nose  of  a  one-sided,  overweening  criticism,  arrieres  pensees,  to  be 
applied  to  this  modern  tendency-seeking,  and  plan-making.  What,  according  to  such  a 
method,  may  not  be  found  in  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius,  if  one  is  only  accustomed  to 
hear  the  grass  grow  I 

18 


274  paui^s  farewell  address  to  the 

danger   on  the   side   of  that  earliest   controversy,    which    was  always 
threatening  to  break  forth  again. 

■  Yet  it  til  depended  on  this,  whether  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  could 
succeed  in  carrying  his  wisely  formed  plan  into  effect ;  he  was  well  aware 
what  hindrances  and  dangers  obstructed  his  progress.  It  was  question- 
able whether  the  power  of  love  would  succeed  in  overcoming  the  narrow- 
heartedness  of  the  Jewish  spirit,  and  induce  the  Jewish  Christians  to 
receive  as  brethren  the  Gentile  brethren  who  accompanied  him.  And 
what  had  he  to  expect  from  the  Jews,  when  he,  after  they  had  heard  so 
much  of  his  labors  among  the  Gentiles,  -which  had  excited  their  fanatical 
hatred, — personally  appeared  among  them,  he  who  in  his  youth  had  been 
known  as  a  zealous  champion  of  Pharisaism,  now  accompanied  by  uncir- 
cumcised  Gentiles  as  messengers  from  Gentile  churches,  whose  equal 
birthright  to  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  he  zealously  advocated  ? 
Fully  alive  to  the  difficulties  and  dangers  which  he  must  overcome  in 
order  to  attain  his  great  object,  he  entreated  the  Roman  Christians  for 
their  intercessory  prayers,  that  he  might  be  delivered  from  the  unbe- 
lievers among  the  Jews,  and  that  this  service  might  be  well  received  by 
the  Christians  at  Jerusalem,  that  he  might  come  to  them  from  thence 
with  joy  and  be  refreshed  by  them.   Rom.  xv.  31,  32. 


CHAPTER    VIII 


THE   FIFTH    AND    LAST   JOURNEY    OF    PAUL     TO     JERUSALEM ITS     IMMEDI- 
ATE   CONSEQUENCES HIS    IMPRISONMENT   IN   PALESTINE. 

After  staying  three  months  in  Achaia,  Paul  departed  from  Corinth 
in  the  spring  of  the  year  58  or  59,  about  the  time  of  the  Jewish  Pass- 
over. His  companions  went  before  him  to  Troas,  and  he  first  visited 
Philippi.  As  he  earnestly  wished  to  be  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Pentecost, 
it  was  necessary  to  hasten  his  journey ;  on  that  account  he  did  not  ven- 
ture to  go  to  Ephesus,  but  sent  from  Miletus  for  the  overseers  of  the 
Ephesian  church,  and  probably  those  of  other  neighboring  churches  of 
Lesser  Asia,*  to  come  to  him,  that  in  the  anticipation  of  the  great  dan- 

*  We  cannot  conclude  with  certainty  from  Paul's  farewell  address  to  the  overseers  of 
the  church,  which  is  given  in  the  20th  chapter  of  the  Acts,  that  the  overseers  of  other 
churches  in  Lesser  Asia,  besides  those  of  Ephesus,  were  present  on  that  occasion.  The 
words  in  Acts  xx.  25,  "  among  whom  I  have  gone,"  tv  ol$  Sir/Mov,  may,  it  is  true,  favor 
this  supposition,  since  they  denote  rather  travelling  through  a  certain  district,  than  a  con- 
tinued residence  in  one  place;  but  these  words  may  also  be  fairly  understood  of  the 
apostle's  circuits  within  the  city  of  Ephesus,  and  the  visits  he  paid  to  the  houses  of  the 
presbyters.     The  singular,  "  the  flock,"  to  noi/xviov,  v.  28,  29,  leads  us  to  think  most  nat- 


OVERSEERS    OF   THE   EPHESIAN    CHURCH.  275 

gers  that  awaited  him,  he  might  pour  forth  his  heart  to   them  perhaps 
for  the  last  time,  and  utter  the  parting  words  of  fatherly  love.*     We 


urally  of  only  one  church,  though  it  may  be  here  used  respectively,  and  refer  to  several 
churches.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  Irenasus  applies  it  to  the  overseers  of  distinct 
churches,  and  he  speaks  of  it  in  very  decided  language.  "  In  Mileto  convocatis  episcopis 
et  presbyteris,  qui  erant  ab  Epheso,  et  reliquis  proximis  civitatibus"  (the  bishops  and  elders 
having  been  called  together  at  Miletus,  from  Ephesus,  and  other  neighboring  cities),  iii. 
c.  14,  §  2.  Judging  from  the  character  of  Irenseus  and  his  times,  it  is  not  probable  that  he 
would  be  induced  simply  by  that  expression  in  Paul's  address,  to  deviate  from  the  letter 
of  the  narrative  in  the  Acts.  Hence  we  might  rather  suppose,  that  Irenseus  was  decided 
in  giving  a  different  representation  by  historical  traditions  or  documents  with  which  he 
had  become  acquainted  in  Lesser  Asia.  Yet  the  bias  of  the  episcopal  system  (which  was 
then  germinating)  might,  perhaps,  occasion  a  different  construction  of  the  passage  from 
that  which  the  literal  narrative  would  warrant,  independently  of  any  tradition.  Paul  ap- 
plies to  the  presbyters  the  epithet  "overseers,"  inioiinwoi ;  now  it  could  not  then  be 
surprising  to  find  the  iniaicoTroc  designated  "presbyters,"  for  this  latter  name  was  still  the 
generic  term  by  which  both  might  be  denoted,  but  the  name  enianoiroi  was  already  ex- 
clusively applied  to  the  first  church  governors,  the  presidents  of  the  college  of  presbyters. 
Since,  then,  we  proceed  on  the  supposition  that  this  institution  of  the  church  government 
was  the  same  from  the  beginning,  we  must  hence  conclude  from  the  name  kmaicoTroi  that 
the  bishops  of  other  churches  were  present  at  this  meeting,  and  hence  Irenseus  says  ex- 
pressly "  episcopis  et  presbyteris." 

But  if  we  admit  that  this  meeting  consisted  of  the  overseers  of  the  various  churches 
in  Lesser  Asia,  the  discrepancy  between  the  three  years,  Acts  xx.  31,  and  the  two  years 
and  three  months  of  the  duration  of  Paul's  stay  at  Ephesus  according  to  Luke's  narra- 
tive, would  cease  ;  for  we  might  then  suppose,  that  Paul,  before  he  went  to  Ephesus,  spent 
nine  months  in  other  places  of  Lesser  Asia,  where  he  founded  churches. 

*  Dr.  Baur  and  Dr.  Schneckenburger  think  that  it  can  be  shown,  that  this  address  in 
the  20th  chapter  of  the  Acts  was  not  delivered  by  Paul  in  its  present  form,  but  that  it  was 
framed  by  the  author  of  the  Acts,  on  the  same  plan  as  the  whole  of  his  history,  according 
to  the  conciliatory,  apologetic  tendency  already  noticed.  We  would  not  indeed  pledge 
ourselves  that  the  address  was  taken  down  as  Paul  delivered  it,  with  official  accuracy — 
but  that  it  has  been  faithfully  reported  in  its  essential  contents,  and  that  a  sketch  of  it  was 
in  existence  earlier  than  the  whole  of  the  Acts.  Not  only  do  we  find  nothing  in  it  which 
does  not  correspond  to  the  situation  and  feelings  of  the  apostle,  but  ic  also  contains  several 
marks  of  not  being  cast  in  the  same  mould  as  the  whole  of  the  Acts.  Among  these  marks 
we  reckon  the  mention  of  the  three  years,  ch.  xx.  31,  which  does  not  agree  with  the 
reckoning  in  the  Acts,  the  mention  of  teaching  "  from  house  to  house,"  v.  20,  and  of  the 
warning  voices  of  the  prophets,  v.  23.  (Schneckenburger,  indeed,  considers  this  to  be  a 
prolepsis,  and  finds  in  it  a  mark  of  non-originality  ;  but  it  is  not  at  all  improbable,  that 
already  in  the  churches  with  which  Paul  had  stayed,  he  had  received  warnings  of  the 
dangers  that  threatened  him  from  the  fanatical  rage  of  the  Jews,  though  Luke,  who  did 
not  accompany  Paul  everywhere,  has  not  mentioned  this  in  his  brief  narrative).  Besides, 
when  Paul  speaks  of  a  higher  necessity,  by  which  he  felt  compelled  to  go  to  Jerusalem 
"  bound  in  spirit,"  we  may  infer  that  this  journey,  undertaken  for  what  he  considered  the 
work  committed  to  him  by  the  Lord,  had  a  greater  significance  and  importance,  as  appears 
from  the  explanation  we  have  already  given,  but  which  is  not  so  represented  in  the  Acts. 
If  this  address  indicates  that  it  was  delivered  before  delegates  from  various  Asiatic  churches, 
we  may  also  number  this  among  the  marks.  Baur,  indeed,  (p.  181),  finds  the  mark  of  a 
later  period  in  the  circumstance  that  Paul  allowed  only  the  presbyters  to  come  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  churches ;  but  we  cannot  admit  the  correctness  of  this  opinion.  With- 
out anything  of  the  later  hierarchical  tendency,  they  could  be  so  regarded.     And  since  he 


276  Paul's  farewell  address  to  the 

recognise  in  this  farewell  address,  in  which  Paul's  heart,  thoroughly  im- 
bued with  the  love  of  Christ,  expresses  itself  in  so  affecting  a  manner, 
his  fatherly  anxiety  for  the  churches,  whose  overseers  heard  his  warning 
voice  for  the  last  time,  and  whom  he  was  about  to  leave  at  a  time  full  of 
sad  and  dark  foreboding,  when  many  dangers  threatened  pure  Chris- 
tianity. 

He  could  not  foresee  with  certainty  what  consequences  would  result 
from  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  for  these  depended  on  a  combination  of 
circumstances  too  intricate  for  any  human  sagacity  to  unravel.  But  yet 
he  could  not  be  unaware  of  what  the  fanatical  rage  of  the  Jewish  zealots 
threatened,  and  what  it  might  perpetrate,  under  the  maladministration 
of  the  worthless  Procurator  Felix,  who  combined  the  meanness  of  a  slave 
with  the  caprice  of  a  tyrant  ;*  at  Jerusalem,  too,  where  might  prevailed 
against  right,  and  assassins  (the  notorious  Sicarii)  acted  as  the  tools  of 
any  party  who  were  base  enough  to  employ  them.  In  the  churches 
which  he  had  visited  on  his  journey  hither,  many  individuals  had  warned 
him  in  inspired  language  of  the  danger  that  threatened  him  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  thereby  confirmed  what  his  own  presentiments,  as  well  as  his 
sagacity,  led  him  to  expect,  similar  to  those  sad  anticipations  which  he 
had  expressed  when  he  was  last  at  Corinth  ;  Rom.  xv.  31. 

could  not  arrange  for  all  to  come,  was  it  not  most  natural  that  he  should  choose  these, 
especially  since  they  had  to  watch  over  the  whole  of  the  churches  ?  And  that  this  office 
was  assigned  by  Paul  to  the  presbyters  is  evident  from  those  epistles  of  which  the  genu- 
ineness is  admitted  by  Baur  himself;  from  the  idea  of  "  government,"  Kv/3epvr/oic,  1  Cor. 
xii.  28 ;  of  "  ruling,"  npolorapevoc,  Rom.  xii.  8 ;  from  what  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  15, 
16,  respecting  the  relation  of  the  churches  to  those  who  have  to  fill  ecclesiastical  offices; 
in  which  words  might  be  also  found  from  Baur's  point  of  view,  the  marks  of  a  later  age. 

We  would  not  indeed  attach  equal  weight  to  all  those  marks  appealed  to  in  support 
of  the  originality  of  such  a  farewell  speech  ;  yet  taken  collectively,  their  testimony  appears 
to  prove  something.  And  if  Luke  had  before  him  an  earlier  written  draft  of  Paul's  ad- 
dress, containing  the  presentiment  he  expressed  of  his  impending  death,  I  do  not  see  how 
any  one  is  justified  in  maintaining  that  Paul  could  not  have  uttered  it,  in  case  this  antici- 
pation had  not  been  fulfilled.  According  to  truth,  he  must  have  allowed  him  to  speak  as 
he  actually  spoke.  But  it  could  not  be  any  difficulty  to  Luke  or  to  the  persons  for  whom 
the  record  of  those  memorable  occasions  was  in  the  first  place  designed,  if  a  presentiment 
of  Paul's  respecting  his  impending  fate  was  not  fulfilled  in  its  full  extent.  Infallible  fore- 
knowledge of  future  events  was  certainly,  according  to  the  Christian  idea  of  that  age,  not 
among  the  marks  of  a  genuine  apostle,  and  the  contrary  is  rather  implied  in  Paul's  own 
words,  v.  22.  He  speaks  in  a  somewhat  dubious  tone  of  the  fate  that  awaited  him. 
Whoever  might  have  forged,  after  the  event,  an  address  of  Paul's,  would  have  made  him 
speak  in  a  very  different  and  more  decided  tone.  We  do  not  see  how  Baur  can  infer  from 
the  passage  of  Paul's  epistles,  in  which  he  speaks  with  sanguine  hopes  of  the  consequen- 
ces to  be  expected  from  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  that  Paul  could  not  at  that  time  have 
so  spoken.  Who  can  calculate  the  alterations  of  feeling  in  a  human  soul?  Especially 
does  it  make  a  difference  whether  he  wrote  his  epistle  several  months  before,  (and  yet  he 
anticipated  even  then  the  dangers  that  awaited  him,  Rom.  xv.  31,  a  passage  indeed  not 
admitted  as  genuine  by  Baur,)  or  gave  this  parting  address  as  he  was  going  to  meet  tha 
expected  end  of  his  journey,  after  he  had  received  many  prophetic  warnings. 

*  Of  whom  Tacitus  says :  "Per  omnam  ssevitiam  ac  libidinem  jus  regium  servili  in 
genio  exerouit."     Hist.  v.  9. 


OVERSEERS    OF  THE   EPHESIAN   CHURCH.  277 

There  are  especially  two  warnings  and  exhortations  relative  to  the 
future,  which  he  addressed  to  the  overseers  of  the  church,  and  enforced 
by  the  example  of  his  own  labors  during  three  years'  residence  among 
them.  He  foresaw,  that  false  teachers  from  other  parts  would  insinu- 
ate themselves  into  these  churches,  and  that  even  among  themselves 
such  would  arise  and  gain  many  adherents.*  He  exhorts  them,  there- 
fore, to  watch  that  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  which  he  had  faithfully  pub- 
lished to  them  for  so  long  a  period,  might  be  preserved  in  its  purity.  The 
false  teachers  whom  he  here  pointed  out  were  most  probably  distinct 
from  the  class  of  common  Judaizers ;  for  in  churches  in  which  the  Gen- 
tile Christians,  that  is,  the  Hellenic  element,!  so  predominated  as  in  those 
of  Lesser  Asia,  such  persons  could  not  be  so  dangerous  ;  and  particularly 
when  such  false  teachers  were  described  as  proceeding  from  the  bosom 
of  the  church  itself,  it  must  be  presumed  that  these  heretical  tendencies 
must  have  developed  themselves  from  a  mixture  with  Christianity  of  the 
mental  elements  already  existing  in  the  church.  Might  not  Paul's  expe- 
rience during  his  long  stay  in  Lesser  Asia,  have  given  him  occasion  to 
feel  these  anxieties  for  the  future  ?  As  immediately  after  announcing 
the  danger  that  threatened  the  church,  he  reminded  them  that  for  three 
years  he  had  not  ceased,  day  or  night,  to  warn  each  one  among  them 
with  tears,  we  may  infer  that  he  had  at  that  time  cause  thus  to  address 
the  consciences  of  their  overseers,  and  to  warn  them  so  impressively 
against  the  adulteration  of  Christian  truth.  We  here  see  the  first  omens 
indicated  by  the  apostle  of  a  new  conflict  which  awaited  pure  Christian- 
ity, a  point  to  which  we  shall  recur  again  further  on.J  At  the  close 
of  his  address,  Paul  refers  them  to  the  example  of  disinterested  and  self- 
denying  love,  which  he  had  given  them : — he  had  required  of  them 
neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  raiment,  but  as  they  well  knew,  had  provided 
for  his  own  temporal  wants  and  those  of  his  followers  by  the  labor  of 

*  It  is  possible,  that  v.  30  may  refer  to  the  presbyters  personally,  and  the  words  may 
be  so  understood  that  the  false  teachers  would  proceed  from  their  own  body;  but  since 
the  presbyters  appear  as  representatives  of  the  churches,  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  the 
reference  so  confined.  It  may  be  properly  taken  in  a  more  general  sense,  that  false  teach- 
ers would  not  only  find  entrance  into  the  churches  from  other  places,  but  also  proceed  from 
among  these  churches  themselves. 

f  Schneckenburger,  p.  136,  objects  against  this  remark,  that  in  the  Gentile-Christian 
Galatian  churches,  Judaizing  false  teachers  could  produce  the  greatest  confusion ;  but  tho 
degree  of  Grecian  cultivation  in  Galatia  and  at  Ephesus  makes  a  difference  here. 

\  As  from  what  is  said  in  the  text  it  is  easily  shown,  that  Paul  must  have  held  such  a 
warning  against  tho  propagation  of  new  perversions  of  Christian  truth  to  be  called  for;  so 
I  can  find  no  ground  whatever  for  Baur's  again  repeated  assertion  that  Paul  could  not 
have  so  spoken.  Paul  knew  well  that,  for  the  protection  of  the  genuine,  there  must  be 
opposition  between  the  genuine  and  the  spurious,  there  must  arise  divisions,  1  Cor.  xi. 
19.  When  he  says  that  all  these  troubles,  which  were  already  growing  in  the  germ,  and 
which  had  been  kept  back  through  his  constant  influence  in  the  churches  would  break 
out  after  his  departure,  this  language  is  appropriate  in  the  mouth  of  Paul,  and  furnishes 
no  mark  whatever  of  a  confusion  of  times  on  the  part  of  him  who  may  have  ascribed 
these  words  to  Paul. 


276  Paul's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem. 

his  own  hands.  These  words  are  admirably  suited  to  the  close  of  the 
address.  By  reminding  the  presbyters  of  the  proofs  of  his  disinterested 
lov'e,  and  of  his  zeal  which  shunned  no  toil  and  no  privation  for  the  sal- 
vation of  souls,  he  gave  still  greater  weight  to  his  exhortations.  The 
33d  verse  is  closely  connected  with  the  31st,  where  he  reminds  them  of 
his  labors  among  them  for  their  souls,  and  in  both  verses  he  holds  out 
his  own  example  for  their  imitation.  He  expresses  this  still  more  clearly 
in  the  words,  "I  have  showed  you  all  things  (or  in  every  way),  how  that 
so  laboring  ye  ought  to  support  the  weak,*  and  remember  the  words  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  :  '  It  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.'  "  It  con- 
veyed the  exhortation,  that  in  the  discharge  of  their  office  they  should 
avoid  all  appearance  of  selfishness,  that  they  should  rather  earn  their 
own  livelihood,  and  give  up  their  claim  to  what  they  had  a  right  to  ex- 
pect from  the  church  to  which  they  had  consecrated  their  powers.  He 
impressed  this  upon  them  in  the  most  delicate  manner,  since  he  does  not 
use  the  express  form  of  exhortation,  but  presents  his  example  for  imita- 
tion under  similar  circumstances.  Paul  indeed  declares  elsewhere,  that 
the  preachers  of  the  gospel,  as  Christ  himself  had  expressed  it,  were 
entitled  to  receive  their  maintenance  from  the  churches  for  whose  spirit- 
ual welfare  they  labored.  And  it  may  appear  strange  that  he  here  de- 
parts from  this  rule,  and  that  he  should  here  prescribe  to  all  the  presbyters 
what  elsewhere  he  has  represented  as  an  exception  arising  out  of  very 
peculiar  circumstances,  and  as  something  suited  only  to  his  individual 
position.f  But  there  is  a  difference  between  the  circumstances  of  itiner- 
ant missionaries  and  those  of  the  overseers  of  churches  whose  activity 
at  first  was  not  so  claimed  by  their  pastoral  duties  as  to  prevent  their 
carrying  on  at  the  same  time  their  former  secular  employment  ;J  and  if 
they  thus  labored  with  self-sacrificing  love,  without  any  appearance  of 
selfishness,  their  authority  and  influence,  which  would  be  required  to 
counteract  the  false  teachers,  would  be  much  increased. 

*  Certainly  the  "  weak,"  dcdevelc,  in  Acts  xx.  35,  are  not  those  who  needed  help  in 
respect  of  their  bodily  wants ;  in  that  case,  why  should  not  a  more  definite  word  be  used  ? 
Neither  does  the  connexion  suit  such  an  interpretation,  for  Paul  does  not  say  that  he 
labored  that  he  might  be  able  to  give  to  the  poor,  or  that  he  might  support  his  poor  asso- 
ciates in  the  ministry ;  but  that  the  church  might  not  be  obliged  to  contribute,  either  to 
them  or  to  him,  any  thing  for  their  support.  And  this  manifestly  in  order  that  every 
occasion  might  be  taken  from  the  weak,  who  were  not  sufficiently  established  in  Christian 
principles,  who  would  be  easily  disposed  to  entertain  the  suspicion  of  private  advantage. 
The  use  of  the  word  "  weak"  in  2  Cor.  xi.  29,  also  favors  this  interpretation,  and  what  he 
assigns  in  both  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  as  the  reasons  of  such  conduct  Thus  also 
this  exhortation  stands  in  closer  connexion  with  what  goes  before ;  for  if  the  presbyters 
avoided  all  appearance  of  selfishness,  they  would  have  a  firmer  hold  on  the  general  confi- 
dence, and  thus,  like  Paul  himself  in  reference  to  the  Judaizers,  could  more  successfully 
oppose  the  false  teachers,  who  endeavored  for  their  own  ends  to  excite  mistrust  of  the 
existing  teachers  and  guides  of  the  church. 

f  For  which  reason  Schneckenburger  thinks  it  improbable  that  Paul  should  have  so 
expressed  himself. 

%  See  pages  34,  149,  153. 


OVERSEERS    OF   THE    EPHESIAX    CHURCH.  2  79 

In  this  whole  address,  as  suited  the  feelings  and  aim  of  one  who  was 
probably  taking  a  last  farewell  of  his  spiritual  children,  the  hortatory 
element  is  throughout  predominant ;  if  we  at  the  same  time  suppose  an 
apologetic  element,  which  is  very  doubtful,  it  is  at  all  events  quite  sub- 
ordinate to  the  hortatory.  It  is  very  improbable,  that  when  he  spoke  of 
his  own  disinterestedness,  he  intended  to  repel  the  accusations  of  his  Ju- 
daizing  adversaries ;  for  though  he  was  obliged  to  answer  such  charges 
in  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  we  are  not  to  infer  that  a  similar  exculpa- 
tion of  himself  was  required  in  all  the  churches.  With  greater  reason 
we  may  find  in  what  he  says  of  the  completeness  of  his  teaching  in  the 
doctrines  of  salvation,  a  reference  to  the  accusations  of  his  Judaizing 
opponents,  of  which  we  have  so  often  spoken.  But  even  this  is  very 
doubtful ;  for  in  any  case,  without  an  apologetic  design,  and  simply  to 
excite  the  presbyters  to  fidelity  in  holding  fast  the  pure  doctrine  which 
they  had  received,  he  would  of  necessity  remind  them  how  important  he 
had  felt  it  to  keep  back  nothing  from  them  that  was  necessary  for  salva- 
tion, and  that  he  was  free  from  blame  if,  after  all,  they  should  not  faith- 
fully preserve  the  doctrine  made  known  to  them.* 

Such  an  address  could  not  but  make  a  deep  impression  on  their 
hearts,  of  which  we  have  a  simple  and  striking  description  in  the  Acts 
xx.  36-38. 

When  Paul  arrived  at  Cesarrea  (Stratonis),  within  two  days' journey 
of  Jerusalem,  he  was  warned  anew  of  the  dangers  that  threatened  him 
The  members  of  the  church  and  his  companions  united  their  entreaties 
that  he  would  be  careful  of  his  life,  and  not  proceed  any  further.  But 
though  he  was  far  from  the  enthusiastic  zeal  that  panted  for  martyrdom, 
though  he  never  neglected  any  methods  of  Christian  prudence,  in  order 
to  preserve  his  life  for  the  service  of  his  Lord  and  of  the  Church,  yet  as 
he  himself  declared,  he  counted  his  life  as  nothing,  if  required  to  sacri- 
fice it  in  the  ministry  entrusted  to  him.  However  much  a  heart  so  ten- 
derly susceptible,  so  open  to  all  pure  human  emotions  as  his,  must  have 
been  moved  by  the  tears  of  his  friends,  who  loved  him  as  their  spiritual 
father,  yet  he  suffered  not  his  resolution  to  be  shaken,  but  resisted 
all  these  impressions,  in  order  to  follow  the  call  of  duty  ;  he  left  all 
events  to  the  will  of  the  Lord,  in  which  at  last  his  Christian  brethren 
concurred. 

The  reception  which  Paul  met  with  at  Jerusalem  must  have  been  dif 
ferent  according  to  the  various  materials  of  the  Christian  church,  which 

*  Baur  with  his  fixed  idea  of  a  designed  parallelism  between  Peter  and  Paul,  in  sup 
port  of  which  he  confesses  that  nothing  tan  be  found  elsewhere  in  the  address,  will  at 
least  find  in  these  words  a  point  of  connexion  for  it;  but  certainly  no  one  who  does  not 
contemplate  everything  in  the  light  of  such  a  fixed  idea  will  find  in  the  words  any  refer- 
ence to  such  a  parallel.  The  language  of  Baur  is :  "It  is  as  if  the  perfect  candor  exhib- 
ited in  the  apostolic  ministrations,  and  which  the  Jewish  Christians  would  make  con- 
spicuous in  their  Peter,  in  order  to  defend  him  against  the  reproach  of  duplicity,  GaL  :: 
12,  must  also  be  claimed  for  the  apostle  Paul." 


280  PAUL   AT  JERUSALEM. 

at  that  place  was  mixed  with  Jews.  We  must  here  suppose  the  transi- 
tion from  Judaism  to  Christianity  in  manifold  gradations,  though  all 
the  members,  notwithstanding  the  greatest  differences  on  other  points, 
were  bound  to  one  another  by  the  common  faith  that  Jesus  was  the  Mes- 
siah. The  most  important  point  of  difference,  which,  as  we  shall  see, 
lasted  to  later  times,*  was  this, — those  who,  along  with  their  faith  in 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  still  held  fast  to  the  Jewish  views,  but  at  the  same 
time  acknowledged  the  free  development  of  Christianity  among  the 
heathen,  on  whose  privileges  they  imposed  no  restraints;  on  the  other 
side  were  those  who  were  never  disposed  to  consider  the  uncircumcised 
who  did  not  observe  the  Mosaic  law,  as  equal  partakers  with  themselves 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  We  can  hardly  be  surprised  at  this  when  we 
recollect  that  the  number  of  believing  Jews  is  reckoned  in  Acts  xxi.  20 
as  amounting  to  many  myriads,f  though  this  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an 
exact  enumeration,  and  those  who  came  up  to  the  feast  from  other  parts 
must  be  taken  into  account.  But  we  cannot  venture  to  draw  an  infer- 
ence from  the  small  number  of  Christians  among  the  JewsJ  in  the  third 
century,  respecting  the  relative  proportions  at  this  period. §  The  power- 
ful impression  of  Christ's  appearance  continued  to  operate  on  many;  and 
whatever  among  the  body  of  the  people  was  opposed  to  faith  in  him,  the 
contrariety  that  was  consciously  felt  between  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  their 
carnal  views  now  vanished,  since  they  could  depict  a  Messiah  according 
to  their  mind,  in  him  whose  personal  image  no  longer  stood  before  their 
eyes;  and  what  they  had  been  wont  to  expect  from  the  Messiah,  they  trans- 
ferred to  Christ,  whose  speedy  return  they  anticipated  to  found  his  king- 
dom in  the  world.  Among  many  of  this  class  nothing  was  to  be  found 
peculiarly  Christian,  and  they  distinguished  themselves  from  other  Jews 
only  by  acknowledging  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  Hence,  the  spiritual 
superiors  of  the  people  gave  themselves  no  further  concern  about  such  a 
Christianity,  and  allowed  it  to  remain  undisturbed.  But  it  was  quite 
natural  that  such  people,  when  their  Messianic  expectations  were  not 
fulfilled,  should  apostatize  altogether  from  the  faith. 

Those  who  were  more  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  gos- 


*  See  Justin.  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  f.  265,  66,  ed.  Colon.  1686. 

\  If  the  author  of  the  Acts  wa,s  desirous  of  removing  the  distinction  between  Jewish 
Christians  and  Gentile  Christians,  it  certainly  was  not  to  his  purpose  to  put  the  former  of 
these  nearer  to  the  Jews  themselves.  And  an  author  of  a  later  day,  when  the  number  of 
Christians  among  the  Jews  was  very  much  diminished,  would  hardly  have  had  occasion  to 
make  so  many  of  them. 

\  Origen  says,  T.  i.  in  Joann.  §  2,  that  the  number  of  believing  Jew%  in  the  wholo 
world  did  not  amount  to  so  many  as  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand. 

§  Hegesippus  also  says  in  Eusebius  ii.  23,  Ilo/Uwv  val  tu>v  dpxovruv  marevovTuv  7]v 
Oopvftos  TtJv  'lovSaitJV  Kai  ypa/ifiaTeuv  no),  (jxipioaiov  "keydvruv,  on  Kivdvvevei  nag  6  "ka'o(, 
'Itjoovv  tov  Xpicrbv  izpocdoKav.  (Many  of  the  rulers,  also,  having  believed,  there  was  an 
uproar  of  the  Jews,  of  both  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  said  there  was  danger  that  all  tho 
people  would  expect  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.) 


PA  JL    AT   JERUSALEM.  281 

pel,  the  more  enlightened  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  received  Pau. 
with  Christian  brotherly  love.* 

The  next  day  after  his  arrival  at  Jerusalem,  Paul  with  his  companions 
visited  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  at  whose  house  the  presbyters  of 
the  church  were  assembled.  They  listened  with  great  interest  to  his 
account  of  the  effects  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  But  James 
called  his  attention  to  the  fact,  that  a  great  number  of  Jews  who  be- 
lieved on  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  were  yet  zealous  and  strict  observers 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  wrere  prejudiced  against  him  ;  for  those  Judaizers, 
who  everywhere  sought  to  injure  Paul's  ministry,  had  circulated  in  Jeru- 
salem the  charge  against  him,  that,  not  content  with  releasing  the  be- 
lieving Gentiles  from  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  law,  he  had  required 
of  the  Jews  who  lived  among  them  not  to  circumcise  their  children,  and 
not  to  observe  the  law.  This  charge,  so  brought  forward,  was  certainly 
false ;  for  Paul  combated  the  outward  observances  of  Judaism  only  so 
far  as  the  justification  and  sanctification  of  men  were  made  to  depend 
upon  them.  It  was  his  principle,  that  no  one  should  relinquish  the.  earthly 
national  and  civil  relations  in  which  he  stood  at  his  conversion,  unless 
for  important  reasons;  and  on  this  principle  he  allowed  the  Jews  to 
retain  their  peculiarities,  among  which  was  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic 
law;  1  Cor.  vii.  18.  But  it  could  not  fail  to  happen,  that  those  who 
entered  into  the  Pauline  ideas  of  the  relation  of  the  law  to  the  gospel, 
and  were  thereby  freed  from  scrupulosity  in  the  observance  of  the  for- 
mer, were  led  into  a  freer  line  of  conduct  in  this  respect,  and  some  might 
go  further  than  Paul  wished  in  the  indulgence  of  their  inclinations. 
Such  instances  as  these  might  have  given  occasion  to  the  charge  that  he 
had  seduced  the  Jewish  Corinthians  to  release  themselves  from  the  law. 
It  is  indeed  true,f  that  when  once  this  was  generally  acknowledged,  that 
circumcision  was  of  no  avail  for  obtaining  a  part  in  God's  kingdom,  it 
would  sooner  or  later  fall  into  disuse.  But  in  that  principle  all  the  apos- 
tles agreed,  as  appears  from  what  has  been  said  above,  even  had  we  made 
no  use  at  all  of  the  accounts  in  the  Acts.  According  to  the  principle  in 
which  both  parties  were  unanimous,  the  two  different  forms  of  the  church 
among  Jews  and  Gentiles  springing  from  natural  and  national  distinc- 
tions as  well  as  from  the  process  of  historical  development,  existed  for 
some  time  side  by  side.  As  the  apostles  among  the  Jews  acknowledged 
the  free  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  among  the  Gentiles,  and  allowed  the 

*  In  reference,  also,  to  this  part  of  the  history,  we  must  maintain  the  same  view  which 
has  hitherto  approved  itself  to  us  in  making  use  of  the  Acts;  namely,  that  the  difficulties 
it  presents  in  attempting  to  obtain  an  historical  representation  from  it,  do  not  proceed  from 
any  designed  object  on  the  part  of  the  author,  but  on  the  contrary,  from  the  want  of  prag 
matism,  (i.  e.  a  clear  exhibition  of  causes  and  consequences,)  the  rude  collocation  of  facts, 
so  that  the  narrator  never  placed  himself  in  the  position  of  other  persons,  to  answer  ques- 
tions which  must  occur  to  them  in  order  to  explain  the  connexion  of  the  facts.  Hence  we 
are  obliged  to  supply  many  things  by  historical  combination  before  we  can  obtain  an  intol« 
ligible  history.  t  ^°  wmcn  Baur  gives  prominence. 


282  PAUL    AT   JERUSALEM. 

churches  founded  among  them  to  be  formed  in  their  own  way  without 
interference  of  theirs,*  so  Paal  also  allowed  the  church  among  the  Jews 
to  develop  itself  freely  in  their  way.  In  the  natural  historical  process  of 
development  no  violent  encroachments  were  made  on  either  side.  And 
why  could  not  both  peculiar  ecclesiastical  forms  exist  together  for  a 
length  of  time,  though  the  distinction  must  be  obliterated  by  the  pro- 
gressive development  of  the  church? 

Without  departing  from  the  principles  of  strict  truthfulness,  Paul 
could  repel  those  charges  to  which  we  have  referred,  for  he  was  very 
far  from  wishing  to  anticipate  in  an  arbitrary  manner  the  historical  de- 
velopment ;  it  was  with  him  an  avowed  principle  that  every  man  should 
abide  in  those  relations  which  belonged  to  him  when  the  call  of  Chris- 
tianity reached  him,  and  no  one  should  wilfully  renounce  them.  He  was 
far  from  that  hatred  against  Judaism,  and  the  ancient  theocratic  people, 
of  which  his  violent  opponents  accused  him.  On  the  principles  which 
he  avowed  in  his  epistles,  according  to  which,  to  the  Jews  he  became  a 
Jew,  to  the  Gentiles  a  Gentile,  and  weak  to  the  weak,  he  declared  him- 
self equally  ready  to  do  what  James  proposed,!  to  refute  that  charge  by 
an  overt  act,  by  taking  part  in  the  Jewish  cultus  in  a  mode  which  was 
highly  esteemed  by  pious  Jews.j;  He  joined  himself  to  four  members 
of  the  church,  who  had  undertaken  a  Nazarite's  vow  for  seven  days. 
He  submitted  to  the  same  restraints,  and  informed  the  priests  that  he 
would  be  answerable  for  the  expense  of  the  offerings  that  were  to  be 
presented  on  the  accomplishment  of  the  purification^     But  though  he 

*  Irenaeus  iii.  12,  15,  presents  this  point  of  view  well  :  Hi  autem  qui  circa  Jacoburn 
apostoli  gentibus  quidem  libere  agere  permittebant,  coucedentes  nos  Spiritui  Dei.  Ipsi 
vero  eundem  scientes  Deum  perseverabant  in  pristinis  observationibus.  (But  those  apos- 
tles who  followed  James,allowed  the  Gentiles  to  act  freely,  giving  us  up  to  the  Spirit  of 
God.  Yet  they  themselves,  knowing  the  same  God,  continued  in  their  former  observances). 
He  adds  the  following  words,  which  in  respect  to  freedom  of  historical  apprehension  are 
noteworthy :  ita  ut  et  Petrus  quoque,  timens  ne  culparetur  ab  ipsis,  ante  manducans  cum 
gentibus,  cum  tamen  advenissent  quidam  ab  Jacobo,  separavit  se  et  non  manducavit  cum 
eis.  (So  that  even  Peter  also,  who  had  previously  eaten  with  Gentiles,  when  certain  onea 
came  from  James,  fearing  lest  he  should  be  blamed  by  them,  separated  himself  from  the 
Gentiles  and  would  not  eat  with  them.) 

f  We  must  not  interpret  too  rigidly  the  words  of  James  when  he  desires  Paul  (Acts 
xxi.  24)  by  that  act  to  prove  that  he  also  lived  in  the  observance  of  the  law ;  we  obtain 
their  correct  meaning  by  contrasting  them  with  the  charge  made  by  the  Jews.  The  view, 
according  to  which  Paul  to  "those  without  law,"  avojioi,  became  "one  without  law," 
uvofio^,  was  indeed  different  from  that  of  James,  and  we  know  not  whether  James  and 
Paul  referred  particularly  to  the  special  difference  existing  between  themselves.  There 
are  many  differences  on  which  it  is  better  to  be  silent  than  to  express  our  opinion. 

\  Josephus,  Archseol.  xix.  6,  §  1. 

§  The  common  supposition  that  Paul  joined  himself  to  these  Nazarenes,  when  they 
had  yet  seven  days,  Acts  xxi.  27,  to  continue  their  abstinence  for  the  discharge  of  their 
vow,  and  that  during  this  time  he  kept  the  vow  with  them,  is  at  variance  with  the  mention 
of  twelve  days,  Acts  xxiv.  11,  for  in  that  case  there  must  have  been  seventeen  days.  It 
is  indeed  in  itself  possible,  that  Paul  did  not  reckon  in  the  five  days  which  he  spent  in 
confinement  atCaesarea,  since  they  signified  nothing  for  his  object ;  but  this  is  not  implied 


PAUL  S    VOW    AT   JERUSALEM.  283 

might  have  satisfied  by  this  means  the  minds  of  the  better  disposed 
among  the  Jewish  Christians,  the  inveterate  zealots  among  the  Jews 
were  not  at  all  conciliated.*  On  the  contrary,  they  were  only  the  more 
incensed,  that  the  man  who,  as  they  said,  had  everywhere  taught  the 
Gentiles  to  blaspheme  the  people  of  God,  the  law,  and  the  temple,  had 
ventured  to  take  a  part  in  the  Jewish  religious  service.  They  had  seen 
a  Gentile  Christian,  Trophimus,  in  company  with  him,  and  hence  the 
fanatics  concluded  that  he  had  taken  a  Gentile  with  him  into  the  temple 
and  defiled  it.  A  violent  tumult  instantly  arose,  and  Paul  was  rescued 
from  the  enraged  multitude  only  by  means  of  the  Roman  tribune,  who 
hastened  to  the  spot  with  a  band  of  soldiers  from  the  Arx  Antonia 
situated  over  against  the  temple,  the  quarters  of  the  Roman  garrison. 

Paul  was  on  the  point  of  being  scourged,  (a  common  mode  of  torture 
among  the  Romans,)  for  the  purpose  of  extorting  a  confession  respecting 
the  cause  of  this  tumult,  but  by  declaring  himself  a  Roman  citizen  he  was 
saved  from  this  ignominy.  The  tribune  now  endeavored  to  reach  the 
bottom  of  the  case,  that  he  might  send  Paul  to  appear  before  the  San- 
hedrim. The  manner  in  which  the  apostle  conducted  himself  on  this  oc- 
casion, shows  him  to  have  been  the  man  who  knew  how  to  control  the 
agitation  of  his  feelings  by  a  sober  judgment,  and  to  avail  himself  of 
circumstances  with  Christian  prudence,  without  any  compromise  of  truth. 
When  he  was  suddenly  carried  away  by  the  impulse  of  righteous  indig- 
nation to  speak  with  greater  warmth  than  he  intended,  he  was  able  to 
recover  the  mastery  of  his  feelings,  and  to  act  in  a  manner  becoming  his 
vocation.  In  a  moment  of  excitement  at  the  arbitrary  conduct  of  the 
high  priest  Ananias,  while  thinking  only  of  the  person  and  losing  sight 
of  the  office  whose  duties  had  been  violated,  he  had  used  intemperate 
expressions  though  containing  truth  ;f  but  on  being  informed  that  it  was 
the  high  priest  whom  he  had  so  addressed,  he  at  once  corrected  himself 

in  what  he  has  said.  There  remains,  therefore,  nothing  else  but  to  assume,  that  the  seven 
days  denote  a  definite  Dumber  of  days,  to  which  at  that  time  the  Nazarites'  vow  used  to 
extend,  and  that  Paul  had  joined  the  Nazarites  on  one  of  the  last  of  these  days.  But  on 
the  other  hand,  in  the  section  of  the  Mishnah  on  the  Nazarites'  vow,  the  number  of 
thirty  days  is  mentioned  as  the  fixed  term  for  this  oath.  As  to  the  seven  days  mentioned 
in  Numbers  vi.,  they  are  not  applicable  to  the  present  case ;  for  they  refer  to  the  case  of  a 
person  who,  during  the  time  of  his  vow,  has  defiled  himself,  and  who,  after  the  interval 
of  seven  days'  purification,  begins  his  vow  afresh. 

*  I  find  no  reason  for  assuming  with  Baur,  that  the  machinations  against  Paul  pro- 
ceeded chiefly  from  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  fo  charge  the  author  of  the  Acts  with  falsi- 
fying a  matter  of  fact.  But  I  consider  it  possible  that,  among  the  great  multitude  of  Jew- 
Christians,  some  might  be  found  to  whom  their  Judaism  was  more  important  than  the 
little  Christianity  they  possessed,  and  that  such  persons  would  make  common  cause  with 
the  Jewish  zealots  against  Paul. 

\  The  manner  in  which  Paul  here  comes  before  us  in  the  Acts,  corresponds  most 
exactly  to  his  character,  as  we  learn  it  from  his  epistles,  combining  a  warmth  of  tempera- 
ment with  a  wisdom  which  knew  how  to  turn  every  circumstance  to  the  best  account.  A 
later  writer,  attempting  to  fabricate  a  story,  would  not  have  represented  Paul  as  speaking 
in  the  way  mentioned  in  Acts  xxiii.  3. 


284  PAUL  S  ARREST  AT  JERUSALEM. 

and  said,  he  had  not  considered  that  it  was  the  high  priest,  to  whom 
reverence  certainly  was  due  according  to  the  law.*  In  order  to  secure 
the  voice  of  the  majority  among  his  judges,  he  availed  himself  of  that 
meansf  for  the  victory  of  truth,  which  has  been  often  used  against  it — 
the  divide  et  impera  in  a  good  sense;  he  enlisted  on  his  side  the  bias  for 
that  truth  by  the  acknowledgment  of  which  the  greater  number  of  his 
judges  really  approached  nearer  to  him,  than  the  few  who  denied  it,  in 
order  to  produce  a  division  in  the  assembly.  He  could  say  with  tnith, 
that  he  was  brought  to  trial  because  he  had  testified  of  the  hope  of  Israel, 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  for  he  had  preached  Jesus  as  the  person- 
age' by  whom  this  hope  was  fulfilled.  These  words  had  the  effect  of 
uniting  the  Pharisees  present  in  his  favor,  and  of  involving  them  in  a 
warm  debate  with  the  Sadducees,  to  whom  the  high  priest  himself 
belonged. \     The  former  could  find  no  fault  in  him.     If  he  had  said  that 

*  We  need  not  be  perplexed  with  the  "I  wist  not,"  ydeiv  ova  in  Acts  xxiii.  5.  The 
very  turn  of  the  expression  shows  us  that  Paul  in  his  momentary  embarrassment,  and 
regretting  bis  intemperate  language,  only  sought  to  apologise,  and  the  words,  as  the  by- 
standers would  be  aware,  are  not  to  be  taken  too  stringently. 

f  Everything  here  is  exactly  to  the  life.  To  fabricate  this  would  require  a  talent  for 
description  different  from  what  the  author  of  the  Acts  possessed.  Paul  might  have  had 
in  his  thoughts  another  line  of  defence;  but  after  he  had  allowed  himself  to  be  carried 
away  by  bis  warmth,  and  bad  returned  from  the  digression,  he  chose  this  prudential 
method  in  order  to  give  a  favorable  turn  to  his  cause. 

\  Baur  thinks  that  this  representation  of  the  transaction  as  we  take  it  from  the  Acts, 
must  be  regarded  as  unhistorical  throughout.  It  is  an  entire  distortion  of  the  question  in 
dispute  which  Paul  here  allows  himself,  and  inconsistent  with  his  love  of  truth ;  and  the 
dispute  thus  called  forth  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  is  something  altogether 
improbable.  "  Parties  who  differed  from  one  another  on  such  essential  points,  but  who 
nevertheless  so  frequently  met  in  society,  and  were  united  in  the  same  official  body,  must 
have  so  long  exhausted  themselves  respecting  their  points  of  difference,  that  it  was  im- 
possible they  could,  on  every  occasion,  make  them  afresh  the  subjects  of  the  most  violent 
dispute,  least  of  all  in  such  a  case,  in  which,  as  in  the  one  before  us,  the  easily  detected 
stratagem  of  an  opponent  would  be  made  use  of  in  the  dispute  to  his  own  advantage." 
As  to  the  first  point,  I  do  not  see  why  Paul,  setting  out  from  his  own  subjective  train  of 
thought,  could  not  bring  forward  that  side  of  the  controversy  from  which  his  own  cause 
must  appear  in  a  favorable  light  to  a  majority  of  his  judges,  while  he  kept  in  the  back- 
ground the  other  points  in  dispute.  It  was  not  a  false  counexion,  but  one  perfectly  cor- 
responding to  the  truth  according  to  his  convictions.  Ever  since  he  had  testified  among 
the  Gentiles  of  Jesus  the  Risen  One  as  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Gospel,  he  had  been 
the  object  of  the  most  violent  attacks  of  the  Jews.  This  faith  involved  everything  else 
hat  belonged  to  this  controversy.  Whether  the  hope  of  a  resurrection  to  eternal  life 
would  be  fulfilled,  depended  on  the  question  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  whether 
he  had  really  risen.  Paul  was  conscious  that  he  testified  of  the  reality  of  all  the  hopes 
of  the  pious  under  the  Old  Covenant,  and  that  he  was  a  truly  orthodox  Jew.  This  he 
asserted  with  unwavering  conviction.  This  was  a  line  of  conduct  by  which  he  occupied 
the  position  of  his  opponents,  and  obliged  them  to  acknowledge  what  he  maintained  to  be 
true — a  method  which  perfectly  suited  Paul's  rhetoric  and  dialectic. 

As  to  the  second  point,  we  know  indeed  that  the  Sadducees  gladly  retired  from  public 
offices,  and  whenever  they  occupied  them,  felt  obliged,  from  regard  to  popular  opinion,  to 
accommodate  themselves  to  the  maxims  of  the  Pharisees.     (Ylpoax^povac  off  6  bapioaloc 


PATTIES    ARREST    AT   JERUSALEM.  285 

the  spirit  of  a  deceased  person  or  that  an  angel  had  appeared  to  him 
(the  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus) — whatever  he  might  mean  by  this, 
and  whether  what  he  averred  were  true  or  not,  they  did  not  pretend  to 
determine,  nor  trouble  themselves  about  it — at  all  events,  they  could 
not  criminate  him  on  this  account.*  The  tribune  of  the  Roman  cohort 
at  last  saw  himself  obliged,  by  the  plots  of  Paul's  enemies  against  his 
life,  to  send  him  under  an  escort  to  the  metropolis  of  the  province, 
Caesarea,  and  to  transfer  the  whole  affair  to  the  Procurator  Felix,  who 
resided  there. 

The  accusation  which  the  Sanhedrim  was  allowed  to  bring  by  counsel 
against  him,  was  the  only  one  which,  according  to  the  privileges  secured 
to  the  Jews  by  the  Roman  laws,  could  with  any  show  of  reason  be  made, 
namely,  that  he  everywhere  disturbed  the  Jews  in  the  enjoyment  of  these 
privileges,  the  peaceful  exercise  of  their  cultus, — that  he  excited  dis- 
turbances and  divisions  among  them,  and  that  at  last  he  had  dared  to 
desecrate  the  temple.  The  tribune  was  accused  of  preventing  the  Jews 
from  judging  Paul  according  to  the  privileges  secured  to  them-  by  law. 
Felix,  who  was  not  disposed  to  meddle  with  the  internal  disputes  of  the 
Jews,  perceived  no  fault  in  the  accused,  and  hence  must  at  once  have  set 
him  at  liberty,  if  he  had  not  hoped,  as  it  was  his  constant  practice  to 
make  justice  venal,  to  obtain  money  from  him  ;  but  as  Paul  was  not 
willing  to  purchase  his  freedom  by  such  an  unlawful  method,  which  would 
cast  suspicion  both  on  himself  and  his  cause,  Felix,  in  order  to  gain  favor 
with  the  Jews  on  leaving  them,  to  whom  he  had  been  sufficiently  obnox- 
ious, left  him  in  confinement,  and  thus  he  remained  for  two  years  till  the 
arrival  of  the  new  Procurator,  M.  Porcius  Festus.f 

"keyei,  Aid.  to  jit)  uXkuc  avenrovc  yereaSai  role  ■kI^Oeglv.  Joseph.  Antiq.  1.  xviii.  c.  1,  §  4.) 
But  tho  warmth  of  party  feeling  could  easily  gain  the  ascendancy  over  cold-blooded 
politics,  and  the  forcibly  restrained  spite  between  the  two  parties  would  readilv  break  out 
again  on  many  occasions.  It  might  very  possibly  happen  that,  owing  to  the  quite  tumul- 
tuary manner  in  which  matters  had  been  carried  on  against  Paul,  the  leaders  of  the  people 
had  not  yet  learned  what  was  the  corpus  delicti  in  his  case ;  and  since  the  Pharisees  had 
always  heard  him  assert  that  Jesus  the  Risen  One  had  appeared  to  him,  they  fixed  their 
attention  on  that  one  point,  because  their  controversy  with  the  Sadducees,  which  to  them 
was  far  more  important,  became  the  subject  of  discussion. 

*  The  words  "let  us  not  fight  against  God,"  pri  deofiax^/nv,  Acts  xxiii.  9,  are  cer 
tainly  a  gloss,  and  a  gloss  at  variance  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  passage,  for  this  waa 
certainly  more  than  the  Pharisees  could  be  willing  to  say  from  their  point  of  view. 

\  If  the  precise  time  at  which  Felix  was  recalled,  and  Festus  received  the  govern- 
ment of  the  province,  could  be  exactly  determined,  we  should  have  an  important  chrono- 
logical mark;  but  thi3  period  cannot  be  so  exactly  determined.  The  chronological  data 
on  which  we  here  proceed,  are  the  following.  When  Felix  laid  down  the  procuratorship, 
he  was  accused  at  Rome,  as  Josephus  (Archceol.  xx.  8,  §  9)  relates,  by  the  Jews,  on 
account  of  the  oppressions  he  had  practised,  and  would  have  been  punished  if  he  had  not 
been  delivered  by  the  intercession  of  his  brother  Pallas,  who  just  at  that  time  had  much 
influence  with  the  emperor.  But  Pallas  was  poisoned  by  Nero  in  the  year  62,  see  Tacit. 
Annal.  xiv.  65.  This  enables  us  to  fix  the  extreme  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  recall  of  Felix. 
But  according  to   the  narrative  of  Tacitus,  Pallas   had   long  before  lost  his  influence, 


286  PAUL   SENT  TO   C^ESAEEA. 

Paul  had  for  a  long  time  previous  to  this  event  entertained  the  thought 
of  preaching  the  gospel  in  the  metropolis  of  the  world.  But  it  was  now 
uncertain  whether  he  would  ever  attain  the  fulfilment  of  this  inward  call ; 
but  on  the  night  after  he  had  borne  testimony  to  his  faith  before  the 
assembled  Sanhedrim,  the  Lord  imparted  the  assurance  to  him  by  a 
vision,  that  as  he  had  been  his  witness  in  the  capital  of  the  Jewish  world, 
he  should  also  be  the  same  in  that  of  the  Gentile  world.  It  was  this 
which  confirmed  him  in  his  resolution,  when  the  procurator  was  about  to 
sacrifice  him  to  the  wishes  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  of  seeking  deliver- 
ance by  an  appeal  to  the  emperor.  The  arrival  at  Cassarea  of  the  young 
King  Agrippa  II.,  as  a  person  acquainted  with  the  Jews  and  their  religion, 
was  acceptable  to  Festus,  since  he  hoped  that  by  admitting  Paul  to  an  ex- 
amination in  his  presence,  he  could  learn  something  more  decisive  in  this 
affair,  which  might  be  communicated  in  his  report  to  Rome.  Paul  ap- 
peared before  so  numerous  and  august  an  assembly,  before  the  Roman 
procurator  and  the  Jewish  king,  with  exultation  at  the  thought  of  being 
able  to  testify  of  what  filled  his  heart  before  such  an  audience.  He  ad- 
dressed himself  especially  to  King  Agrippa,  in  whom,  through  their  com- 
mon acquaintance  with  the  Jewish  faith,  he  could  hope  to  find  more 
points  of  connexion  than  in  a  heathen  magistrate.  He  narrated  how  he 
had  been  educated  in  zealous  attachment  to  Pharisaic  principles,  and 
from  a  violent  persecutor  had,  by  a  call  from  the  Lord  himself,  become  a 
devoted  preacher  of  the  gospel, — that  in  obeying  this  call  up  to  that  time 

{Annul,  xiii.  14.)  At  the  beginning  of  his  reign,  Nero  had  removed  Pallas  from  the  office 
he  held  under  Claudius,  aDd  treated  him  with  displeasure.  And  since  Josephus  says  that 
when  Pallas  interceded  for  his  brother  Felix  he  stood  in  favor  with  the  emperor,  it  follows, 
that  the  recall  of  Felix  must  have  taken  place  in  the  beginning  of  Nero's  reign,  which  can 
by  no  means  be  admitted.  "What  Josephus  says  in  the  history  of  his  life,  of  his  own 
journey  to  Rome  in  his  six-and-twentieth  year,  gives  no  sure  foundation  for  determining 
the  time  when  Felix  laid  down  his  office.  Schrader  thinks  indeed,  that  he  can  find  a 
decisive  chronological  mark  in  this,  that  something  which  Josephus  puts  in  connexion 
with  the  entrance  of  Festus  into  office,  was  decided  by  the  influence  of  Poppsea,  already 
married  to  Nero,  (Joseph.  Archceol.  xx.  8,  §  1) ;  for  it  would  follow  that  since  Nero, 
according  to  Tacitus,  married  Poppaea  in  62,  Festus  must  have  entered  on  his  government 
about  this  time.  But  the  words  of  Josephus,  xiv.  60,  "  about  this  time"  /card  rbv  icaipov 
tovtov,  cannot  avail  for  exactly  determining  the  time ;  Poppaja,  long  before  her  marriage 
to  Nero,  had  great  influence  over  him,  as  appears  from  the  words  of  Tacitus,  Annal.  xiv. 
60 :  "  Ea  diri  pellex  et  adulteri  Neronis.  mox  mariti  potens,"  (She,  a  mistress  of  the  de- 
testable and  adulterous  Nero,  afterwards  influential  with  him  as  her  husband,)  and  may 
have  already  at  an  earlier  day  accomplished  much  by  interceding  with  the  emperor.  Wo 
need  not  attach  much  weight  to  the  circumstance  that  Josephus  calls  her  at  that  time 
the  wife  of  Nero.  But  in  all  this,  much  uncertainty  attaches  to  the  chronology  of  events, 
and  the  supposition  that  Felix  laid  down  his  office  in  the  year  62,  and  therefore  that 
Paul's  confinement  took  place  in  60,  is  by  no  means  sufficiently  proved.  "We  may  there- 
fore safely  place  it  some  years  earlier.  If  Paul  was  set  at  liberty  from  his  confinement  at 
Rome,  we  must  necessarily  admit  the  earlier  date ;  for  if  his  confinement  at  Rome  had 
been  contemporaneous  with  the  great  conflagration,  he  would  certainly  have  fallen  a 
sacrifice  to  the  fury  then  excited  against  the  Christians. 


Paul's  defence  at  oesarea.  287 

he  had  testified  bef  re  Jews  and  Gentiles,  great  and  small,  but  had  pub- 
lished nothing  else  than  what  Moses  and  the  prophets  had  foretold  ; 
why  then  do  you  doubt  that  the  Messiah  should  suffer,  that  he  should 
rise  from  the  dead,  and  by  the  assurance  of  an  everlasting  divine  life 
diffuse  light  among  Jews  and  Gentiles  ?  This  he  might  presume  was 
admitted  by  the  king  as  an  acknowledged  article  of  faith,  but  it  must 
appear  utterly  strange  to  the  Romans ;  strange  also  must  the  religious 
inspiration  with  which  Paul  uttered  all  this  -appear  to  the  cold-hearted 
Roman  statesman.  He  could  see  nothing  in  it  but  fanatical  delusion. 
'*  Too  much  Jewish  learning,"  he  exclaimed,  "  hath  made  thee  mad." 
But  with  calm  confidence  Paul  replied,  "  I  am  not  mad,  but  speak  the 
words  of  truth  and  soberness!"  and,  turning  to  Agrippa,  he  called  upon 
him  as  a  witness,  since  he  well  knew  that  these  things  were  not  done  in 
any  corner  of  the  earth,  in  secret,  but  publicly  at  Jerusalem.  And  with 
a  firm  conviction,  that,  in  all  he  had  testified,  the  promises  of  the  pro- 
phets were  fulfilled,  he  said  to  the  king,  "  Believest  thou  the  prophets  ? 
I  know  that  thou  believest !"  Agrippa,  offended  by  Paul's  confidence, 
answered,  "Truly  in  a  short  time*  thou  wilt  make  me  a  Christian." 
Paul,  with  his  fetters  on  his  arm,  conscious  of  possessing  more  than  all 
the  glory  of  the  world,  uttered  the  noble  words,  "Yes,  I  pray  God  that 
sooner  or  later,  he  may  make  not  only  thee,  O  king,  but  all  who  hear  me 
to-day,  what  I  now  am,  except  these  bonds  !" 

As  the  king  and  the  procurator  after  this  examination  could  not  find 
Paul  guilty  of  any  offence  punishable  by  the  laws,  the  procurator  would 
probably  have  set  him  at  liberty,  if  after  his  appeal  to  Csesar  it  had  not 
been  necessary  for  the  matter  to  take  its  legal  course ;  yet  the  report 
{elogium)  with  which  he  would  be  sent  to  Rome,  could  not  be  otherwise 
than  in  his  favor.  The  centurion  to  whom  he  was  committed,  with  other 
prisoners  that  were  to  be  taken  to  Rome,  certainly  corroborated  the  im- 
pression of  this  favorable  report  by  the  account  he  gave  of  Paul's  con- 
duct during  his  long  and  dangerous  voyage.  Hence  he  met  at  Rome 
with  more  indulgent  treatment  than  the  other  prisoners  :  he  was  allowed 
to  hire  a  private  dwelling  in  which  only  one  soldier  attended  him  as  a 
guard,  to  whom  he  was  fastened  by  a  chain  on  the  arm  (the  usual  mode 
of  the  custodia  militaris),  and  could  without  restraint  receive  visits,  and 
write  letters. 


*  I  understand  the  words  kv  oliyu  (Acts  xxvi.  28)  in  the  only  sense  which  they  can 
have  according  to  the  usus  loquendi  and  Paul's  answer.  The  interpretation  adopted  by 
Meyer  "with  little,"  is  indeed  possible,  but  appears  to  me  not  so  natural.  If  the  read- 
ing of  the  Cod.  Alex,  and  of  the  Vulgate,  which  Lachmann  approves,  iv  fieyiXu,  be 
adopted  in  Paul's  answer,  the  words  of  Agrippa  must  be  thus  explained:  With  few 
reasons  (which  will  not  cost  you  much  trouble)  you  think  of  making  me  a  Christian, — 
and  the  answer  of  Paul  will  be:  Whether  with  great  or  with  little — for  many  or  few 
reasons,  I  pray  God,  &c.  But  I  cannot  make  up  my  mird  to  receive  as  correct  this  read- 
ing, which  may  be  explained  as  a  gloes,  and  is  not  ei-pported  by  very  preponderating 
authorities. 


288  PAUL  AND  THE  JEWS  AT  ROME. 

As  he  had  cause  to  fear  that  the  Jews  dwelling  at  Rome  had  received 
from  Jerusalem  a  report  inimical  to  his  character,  and  regarded  him  as  an 
accuser  of  his  people,  he  endeavored  speedily  to  remove  this  unfavorable 
impression.  Accordingly,  three  days  after  his  arrival,  he  invited  the 
principal  persons  among  them  to  visit  him.  It  proved  that  no  report  to 
Paul's  prejudice  had  yet  reached  them,  if  it  be  allowed  that  they  spoke 
the  truth.  It  also  appeared  from  the  statements  of  these  respectable 
Jews,  that  they  had  heard  little  or  nothing  of  the  Christian  church  which 
existed  in  the  same  city  with  themselves.  Nor  is  this  inconceivable,  if 
we  only  consider  the  immense  size  of  the  metropolis,  and  the  vast  con- 
fluence of  human  beings  it  contained,  and  if  to  this  we  add,  that  the  main 
body  of  that  church  consisted  of  Gentiles,  and  that  these  wealthy  Jews 
busied  themselves  far  more  about  other  objects  than  about  the  concerns 
of  religion.  Yet  it  by  no  means  appears  from  the  statements  of  the  Jews 
that  they  had  scarcely  heard  of  a  Christian  church  existing  at  Rome,  but 
only  that  they  had  not  taken  any  pains  to  acquire  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  its  existence.  They  knew  indeed  that  this  new  sect  met  everywhere 
with  opponents,  and  hence  it  might  be  inferred  that  they  had  heard  of 
the  controversies  which  had  been  carried  on  at  Rome  about  it,  for  the 
"everywhere"  (Travraxov),  in  Acts  xxviii.  22,  certainly  does  not  exclude 
a  reference  to  what  was  going  on  at  Rome  itself,  and  we  must  not  forget 
that  only  the  substance  of  what  the  Jews  said  is  handed  down  to  us.* 
As  they  heard  much  of  the  opposition  excited  against  this  new  sect,  but 
nothing  precise  respecting  its  doctrines,  they  were  well  pleased  that 
Paul  proposed  to  give  them  an  address  on  the  subject.  But  here,  as 
everywhere  else,  Paul's  preaching  found  more  acceptance  with  the 
Gentiles  than  with  the  Jews.f 

*  I  cannot  find  any  foundation  for  tbe  contradiction  which  Dr.  Baur  thinks  he  has 
detected  between  this  narration  in  the  Acts,  and  the  existence  of  such  a  church  at  Rome 
as  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  requires  us  to  suppose. 

f  The  position  developed  and  advocated  with  equal  acuteness  and  learning  by  H. 
Bottger  in  the  second  part  of  his  Beitrage  zur  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  die  pauli- 
nischen  Briefe,  Gottingen,  1837,— that  Faul  was  a  prisoner  only  for  the  first  three  or  five 
days  after  his  arrival  in  Rome,  that  he  then  obtained  his  freedom,  and  lived  for  two  years 
in  a  hired  house,  quite  at  liberty; — this  position,  if  it  were  true,  would  cast  a  new  light 
on  Paul's  history  during  this  period;  for  it  would  then  appear  that  all  those  Epistles, 
which  evidently  were  written  during  some  one  imprisonment,  oouldnot  have  been  written 
at  Rome  or  during  his  first  confinement  there.  But  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  is  directly 
opposed  to  this  supposition.  I  cannot  understand  Acts  xxviii.  16,  otherwise  than  that 
permission  was  then  granted  to  Paul  to  reside  in  a  private  house,  the  same  which  is  de- 
signated in  v.  23,  "his  lodging,"  %evia,  and  in  v.  30,  as  "his  own  hired  house,"  kv  Idiu 
ftiadu/xaTi.  It  cannot  be  imagined,  that  if,  after  three  days,  so  important  an  alteration  had 
taken  place  in  Paul's  circumstances,  Luke  would  not  have  mentioned  it,  for  the  assertion 
that  his  readers  must  have  concluded  this  of  themselves,  from  the  known  forms  of  Roman 
justice,  cannot  satisfy  us.  Even  if  this  could  have  been  supposed,  he  would  hardly  have 
omitted  to  point  out  in  few  words  so  important  a  change  in  Paul's  lot.  But  it  is  not 
easily  proved  that  such  an  inference  could  be  drawn  from  what  is  known  respecting  the 
course  of  Roman  justice  at  that  time.     The  manner  also  in  which  Luke  expresses  him- 


PAUL  AND  THE  JEWS  AT  ROME.  289 

With  the  confinement  of  Paul  at  Rome,  a  new  and  important  era 
commenced,  not  only  in  his  life  and  ministry,  but  also  in  the  development 
of  the  churches  founded  by  him;  for  in  proportion  as  Christianity  spread 
more  widely,  a  number  of  heterogeneous  mental  elements  were  brought 
into  action,  many  important  phenomena  became  conspicuous ;  while  the 
divine  word  operated  among  them  in  an  independent  manner,  and  they 
were  deprived  of  the  apostle's  personal  oversight  and  guidance. 

self  (Acts  xxviii.  30,  31)  respecting  Paul's  residence  for  two  years  at  Rome,  certainly 
implies  that  he  had  not  then  o.btiined  his  freedom,  for  we  are  merely  told  that  he 
preached  the  gospel  in  his  own  dwelling;  but  it  is  not  narrated  that  he  visited  the 
synagogue  or  any  place  where  the  church  met,  for  which  omission  no  other  reason 
can  be  given,  than  that,  although  he  could  receive  any  visit  in  his  own  residence, 
under  the  inspection  of  his  guard,  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  go  to  whatever  place  ho 
chose;  and  least  of  all,  would  a  prisoner,  whose  cause  was  not  yet  decided,  have 
been  permitted  to  attend  these  meetings  of  the  church,  even  if  accompanied  by  his 
guard.  Here,  therefore,  we  have  a  fact  which  cannot  be  explained,  unless  we  admit 
the  continued  confinement  of  Paul.  How  likewise  can  it  be  imagined,  that  Paul,  who 
wished  to  visit  the  church  at  Rome  only  on  his  way,  would  have  stayed  there  for  two 
years,  where  suitable  measures  had  already  been  taken  for  the  continued  propagation  of 
Christianity,  instead  of  travelling  to  those  regions  of  the  West,  where  nothing  at  all  had 
yet  been  done  for  making  known  the  gospel  ?  This  is  explicable  only  on  the  supposition, 
that  he  remained  so  long  a  time  at  Rome  under  constraint. 

According  to  the  account  in  the  Acts,  we  may  receive  it  as  an  established  fact,  that 
Paul  lived  two  years  in  Rome  as  a  prisoner, — a  fact  which  can  be  overturned  by  nothing 
that  we  know  of  the  course  of  Roman  justice  in  the  case  of  such  appeals;  even  without 
waiting  to  examine  how  these  could  be  reconciled  to  one  another. 

Meanwhile,  from  what  is  known  of  the  legal  processes  in  the  time  of  the  first  Cassars, 
it  can  by  no  means  be  proved,  what  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  that  all  the  causes 
which,  in  consequence  of  an  appeal,  were  brought  to  Rome  for  decision,  were  decided  in 
the  course  of  five  or  ten  days.  It  was  one  thing  to  decide  on  the  admissibility  of  the 
appeal,  and  another  thing  to  decide  on  the  point  of  law  respecting  which  the  appeal  was 
made.  My  respected  colleague,  Professor  Rudorflf,  who  has  had  the  goodness  to  make 
me  a  written  communication  on  this  subject,  concludes  with  the  statement,  that  the  term 
of  five  or  ten  days  related  not  to  the  duration  of  the  judicial  proceedings,  but  to  the 
lodging  of  the  appeal,  and  to  the  apostoli  (  =  literal  dimissorice) ;  that  it  gave  no  prescrip- 
tion relative  to  the  term  of  the  transaction  itself;  and  that  the  accused  remained  under 
arrest  till  the  decision  of  the  emperor.  Thus,  in  the  Sententioz  Receptee,  of  Julius  Paulus, 
lib.  v.  tit.  34,  it  is  said  expressly  of  the  apostoli,  "  Quorum  postulatio  et  aceeptio  intra 
quintum  diem  ex  officio  facienda  est,"  (whose  application  and  grant  must  be  made  within 
five  days).  In  a  law  enacted  by  the  Emperor  Constantino  in  314,  according  to  which, 
however,  we  are  not  justified  in  determining  the  legal  process  in  the  limes  of  the  first 
Caesars,  is  the  express  provision  that  the  appellator  should  be  free  from  arrest  only  in 
causa  civiles,  but  of  crirninales  causce  it  is  said,  "  In  quibus,  etiamsi  possunt  provocare, 
eum  tamen  etatum  debent  obtinere,  ut  post  provocationem  in  custodia  perseverent,"  (in. 
which  although  they  can  appeal,  yet  they  ought  to  hold  that  position  that,  after  the  ap- 
peal, they  may  remain  in  custody.)    Cod.  Theodoa.  lib.  xl  tit.  30,  c.  2. 


290  PAULS   FIRST    CONFINEMENT   AT   ROME. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

PAUL  DURING  HIS  FIRST  CONFINEMENT  AT  ROME,  AND  THE  DEVELOP' 
MENT  DURING  THE  SAME  PERIOD  OF  THE  CHURCHES  PREVIOUSLY 
FOUNDED   BY    HIM. 

In  examining  this  portion  of  Paul's  history,  we  must  fix  our  atten- 
tion on  three  principal  points  ;  his  relation  to  the  Roman  state, — to  the 
Church  at  Rome, — and  to  the  Churches  in  other  parts. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  the  main  thing  to  be  considered  is,  from  what 
point  of  view  the  charge  under  which  he  was  detained  as  a  prisoner  is 
to  be  regarded  ?  Christianity  was  not  yet  denounced  as  a  religio  illicita, 
therefore  Paul  could  not,  like  the  later  teachers  of  Christianity,  be  ac- 
cused of  violating  the  laws  of  the  state,  on  account  of  his  exertions  in 
propagating  this  religion.  If  Christians  appeared  only  as  a  sect  pro- 
ceeding from  Judaism,  who  were  accused  by  Paul's  Jewish  adversaries 
of  adulterating  the  original  doctrines  of  their  religion,  then  at  Rome  no 
attention  would  have  been  paid  to  disputes  that  merely  concerned  the 
religious  institutions  of  the  Jews.  This  charge  against  Paul  could  there- 
fore have  been  considered  as  altogether  foreign  to  Roman  judicature, 
and  he  should  have  soon  regained  his  liberty ;  in  this  manner  the  affair 
would  soon  have  been  brought  to  a  close.  But  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
the  matter  should  be  viewed  under  this  aspect,  the  most  favorable  for  the 
apostle.  The  Jews  might  accuse  him  as  being  a  disturber  of  the  public 
peace,  who  interfered  with  the  privileges  guaranteed  to  them  by  the 
Roman  government,  as  their  advocate  Tertullus  had  already  attempted 
to  prove.  An  additional  allegation  might  be  made,  which  in  view  of 
the  Roman  law  would  tend  much  more  to  Paul's  injury — that  he  had 
caused  among  other  Roman  subjects  and  citizens  in  the  provinces,  and  in 
Rome  itself,  movements  which  were  detrimental  to  the  good  order  of  the 
state ;  that  he  had  induced  subjects  and  citizens  to  apostatize  from  the 
state  religion,  by  propagating  a  religion  at  variance  with  the  ancient 
Roman  institutions,  in  which  religion  and  politics  were  intimately 
blended.*  If  the  church  at  Rome,  consisting  mainly  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, gave  the  impression,  in  its  whole  appearance,  of  being  un-Jewish,  in 

*  The  point  of  view  as  a  Roman  statesman,  from  which  Cicero  formed  his  model  of  law. 
"  Separatim  nemo  habessit  Deos;  neve  novos  sive  advenas,  nisi  publico  adscitos  privatim 
Dolunto.  Ritus  familial  patrumque  servanto."  (No  one  may  have  goda  by  himself;  let  no 
one  worship  new  gods  or  foreign  ones  in  private,  unless  recognised  by  the  state.  Let  him 
preserve  the  rites  of  the  family  and  of  the  fathers.)  Cicero  de  Legibus,  1.  ii.  8 ;  and  in  the 
Commentaries,  c.  x.,  against  the  conftisio  religionum,  which  arose  from  the  introduction  of 
foreign,  new  religions.  This  was  the  point  of  view  from  which  a  Tacitus  and  the  Younger 
Pliny  formed  their  judgment  of  Christianity. 


PAUL    AT    ROME.  291 

short,  a  genus  tertiwn  /  this  view  of  Paul's  conduct  would  be  formed  so 
much  the  more  easily.  The  existence  of  this  new  religious  sect  in  the 
capital,  would  first  be  made  an  object  of  public  attention  by  the  proceed- 
ings against  Paul.  We  may  suppose,  that  his  fanatical  and  artful  adver- 
saries among  the  Jews  would  leave  no  artifice  untried  to  set  his  conduct 
in  the  worst  possible  light  to  the  Roman  authorities.  Thus  the  investi- 
gation of  his  cause,  with  the  accusation  and  defence,  might  be  protracted, 
and  his  prospects  might  by  turns  become  favorable  or  unfavorable. 

During  the  first  period  of  his  residence  at  Rome  he  underwent  no 
public  examination.*  His  situation  justified  the  most  favorable  expecta- 
tions, and  he  proposed  when  set  at  liberty,  before  he  extended  his  sphere 
of  labor  towards  the  West  according  to  the  plan  he  had  previously 
formed  to  visit  Lesser  Asia,  where  his  personal  exertions  seemed  to  be 
very  necessary  to  counteract  many  influences  that  were  operating  injuri- 
ously on  the  churches.  He  could  even  intimate  to  an  overseer  of  the 
church  at  Colossse,  Philemon,  that  he  intended  to  take  up  his  abode  with 
him. 

At  a  later  periodf  of  his  imprisonment,  when  he  had  already  under- 
gone a  public  examination,  he  had  no  such  favorable  prospect  before 
him ;  the  thought  of  martyrdom  became  familiar  to  his  mind  ;  yet  the 
expectation  of  being  released  from  confinement  was  predominant,  so  that 
he  wrote  to  the  church  at  Philippi  that  he  hoped  to  come  to  them  soon. 
But  if  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  origin  and  original  constitution  of 
the  church  at  Rome  be  correct,  a  close  connexion  and  intimate  commu- 
nion may  be  presumed  to  have  existed  between  its  members  and  the  in- 
dividual whom  they  might  regard  mediately  as  their  spiritual  father,  and 
whose  peculiar  form  of  doctrine  prevailed  among  them.  Now  if  the 
epistles  which  Paul  wrote  during  his  first  confinement  at  Rome  bore 
evidence  against  such  a  supposition,  they  might  also  be  adduced  against 
our  views.J  If  these  epistles  make  us  acquainted  with  any  difference 
existing  between  the  Roman  church  and  Paul,  this  fact  would  be  very 
decisive,  and  we  should  be  forced  to  conclude  that  a  strongly  marked  Ju- 
daizing  element  predominated  in  that  church.  But  the  Roman  Christians 
had  already,  even  before  he  arrived  at  Rome,  evinced  their  sympathy, 
since  several  of  their  number  travelled  a  day's  journey,  as  far  as  the 
small  town  of  Forum,  Appii,  and  some  a  shorter  distance  to  the  place 
called  Tres  Tabernce,  in  order  to  meet  him.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Phi- 
lippians  he  sends  salutation  from  the  whole  church  (iravreg  ol  ayioi) 
which  is  a  proof  of  the  close  connexion  in  which  he  stood  with  them. 

*  Whether  this  term  embraced  the  whole  of  the  first  two  years  of  his  confinement  we 
cannot  with  certainty  determine,  for  the  silence  of  Luke  in  the  Acts,  which  he  closes  so 
abruptly,  is  not  a  sufficient  proof  that,  during  the  whole  of  this  period,  there  waa  nothing 
memorable  to  be  narrated  respecting  the  fate  of  the  imprisoned  apostle. 

j-  As  appears  from  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

\  As  has  actually  been  done  by  Schneckenburger,  in  the  work  to  which  we  have  fre* 
quently  referred,  see  p.  123. 


292  PAUL    AT   ROME. 

As  to  his  givfcig  special  salutations  from  the  Christians  in  the  service  of 
the  imperial  palace  (the  Ccesariani),  we  are  not  to  infer  that  these  per- 
sons were  more  in  unison  with  him  than  the  rest  of  the  church,  but  rather 
that  they  were  better  acquainted,  and  on  more  intimate  terms,  with  the 
church  at  Philippi.  At  all  events,  it  is  an  arbitrary  supposition*  that 
these  Gentile  Christians  were  those  who,  in  distinction  from  the  rest  of 
the  church  consisting  of  Jewish  Christians,  were  in  closer  connexion 
with  Paul.  It  might  indeed  be  expected,  that  if  these  Ccesariani  were 
more  allied  by  their  Gentile  origin  to  the  church  at  Philippi,  he  would 
have  mentioned  this  circumstance  as  the  reason  for  presenting  their 
special  salutations.  It  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  this  view,  if  these 
epistles  contain  undeniable  marks,  that  in  the  Roman  church  Judaizers 
were  found  hostile  to  Paul,  and  occasioning  him  much  vexation;  for 
we  ourselves  have  pointed  out  a  Judaizing  tendency  in  a  smaller  part  of 
this  church  sufficient  to  account  for  such  an  appearance.  As  the  Gentile 
Christians  who  advocated  the  Pauline  principles,  now  found  so  important 
a  support  in  his  personal  presence,  and  cooperated  with  him  in  publishing 
the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  the  opposition  of  the  Judaizing  anti- 
Pauline  party  must  have  been  excited  by  it,  and  rendered  still  more  ac- 
tive and  violent.  The  whole  tone  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippiansf  tes- 
tifies of  the  conflicts  he  sustained  in  his  intercourse  with  the  Judaizers. 
His  excited  feelings  cannot  be  mistaken ;  his  displeasure  was  called  forth 
by  anxiety  for  the  purity  of  the  gospel  against  those  who,  where  the  soul 
appeared  in  a  fit  state  for  receiving  the  gospel,  sought  to  take  advantage 
of  it  in  eveiy  way,  for  gaining  adherents  for  their  Jewish  ceremonies  and 
doctrine  of  meritorious  works,  at  the  same  time  that  they  won  them  to 
a  reception  of  Christianity.  And  Paul  himself  distinguishes  those  among 
the  Roman  Christians  who,  with  friendly  feelings  towards  himself,  were 
active  in  cooperating  with  him  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  from  those 
who,  animated  with  jealousy  at  his  success,  endeavored  to  form  a  party 
against  him,  and  to  "  add  affliction  to  his  bonds,"  Phil.  i.  15-]  8  ;  and 
among  the  whole  body  of  Jewish  Christians  about  him,  he  could  only 
point  out  two  who  labored  with  him  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  con- 
tributed to  his  comfort ;  Col.  iv.  11. 

During  his  confinement,  anxiety  for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  for  the  prosperity  of  the  churches  he  had  founded,  occupied 
him  far  more  than  the  care  of  his  personal  welfare.  As  all  persons  had 
free  access  to  him,  he  thus  enjoyed  opportunities  for  preaching  the  gos- 
pel. By  the  soldiers  who  relieved  one  another  in  standing  guard  over 
him,  it  became  known  among  their  comrades,  (among  the  cohortes  prce- 
torianm,  in  the  castra  prcetoria,  in  the  prcetorium)  and  hence  to  a 
wider  extent  in  the  city,  that  he  was  put  in  confinement,  not  on  account 
of  any  civil  offence,  but  for  his  zeal  on  behalf  of  the  new  religion  ;  and 

*  Proposed  by  Schneckenburger,  p.  123. 

f  As  Schneckenburger  remarks  with  great  justice,  p.  123. 


PAT7L   AT   ROME.  293 

this  tended  to  promote  it,  since  a  cause  for  which  its  advocate  sacrificed 
everything  was  certain  of  attracting  attention.  By  his  example,  also, 
many  of  the  Roman  Christians  were  roused  to  publish  the  truth  zeal- . 
ously  and  boldly.  But  while  some  cooperated  with  Paul  in  a  oneness  of 
heart  and  mind,  others  came  forward  who  belonged  to  the  anti-Paulin^, 
Judaizing  party,  in  opposition  to  his  method  of  publishing  the  gospel. 
The  manner  in  which  he  expresses  himself  respecting  these  his  opponents 
is  worthy  of  notice  on  two  accounts.  We  here  see  a  man  who  could 
entirely  forget  his  own  person  when  the  cause  of  his  Lord  was  concerned, 
— who  could  even  rejoice  in  what  bore  an  unfriendly  aspect  towards  him- 
self, if  it  contributed  to  promote  the  cause  of  Christ.  We  perceive  how 
far  his  zeal  for  the  truth  and  against  error  was  from  all  selfish  contract- 
edness ;  with  what  freedom  of  spirit  he  was  able  to  pass  judgment  on 
all  doctrinal  differences.  Even  in  the  erroneous  views  of  these  Judaizers 
he  acknowledged  the  truth  that  lay  at  their  basis  ;  and  when  he  com- 
pared the  errors  propagated  by  them,  with  the  fundamental  truth  which 
they  announced  at  the  same  time,  it  was  still  a  cause  of  joy  to  him  that 
this  fundamental  truth  was  becoming  more  generally  known,  that  in 
every  way,  whether  in  pretence  (by  those  who  in  their  hearts  preferred 
Judaism  to  Christianity,)  or  with  an  upright  intention,  Christ  was 
preached,  Phil.  i.  18.  For  even  by  these  persons  the  knowledge  of  the 
facts  on  which  the  gospel  rested  was  spread  to  a  greater  extent;  and 
where  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  the  Founder  and  King  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  was  once  produced,  on  this  foundation  a  superstructure 
could  be  raised  of  more  correct  and  extended  instruction.  But  from 
this  we  learn  what  is  of  service  for  explaining  later  appearances  in  the 
history  of  the  Roman  church,  that  when  the  Pauline  spirit  was  com- 
municated to  it,  there  wras  at  the  same  time  transplanted  within  it  the 
germ  of  a  Judaizing  tendency. 

The  concerns  of  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia  first  occivpied  Paul's 
attention  in  his  imprisonment.*     He  had  received  an  exact  account  of 

*  The  supposition  on  which  we  here  proceed,  that  Paul  wrote  the  Epistles  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  the  Ephesians,  and  Philemon,  during  this  confinement  at  Rome,  has  found  in  later 
times  strenuous  opponents  in  Schulz  and  Schott,  to  whom  must  be  added  Bottger ;  but  the 
arguments  advanced  by  them  against  it  do  not  appear  to  me  adapted  to  overthrow  the 
opinion  hitherto  most  generallj'  held,  though  no  demonstrative  proof  can  be  given  in  its 
favor,  since  Paul  does  not  exactly  state  the  circumstances  under  which  he  wrote.  What 
he  says  of  the  opportunities  presented  for  announcing  the  gospel,  at  least  agrees  best  with 
what  we  know  of  his  confinement  at  Rome  from  the  hints  given  at  the  close  of  the  Acta 
and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  (The  latter  indeed  cannot  be  urged  against  Bottger, 
for  he  supposes  that  epistle  to  have  been  written  while  Paul  was  confined  at  Caesarea.)  It 
does  not  appear  to  me  surprising,  that  a  runaway  slave  from  Colossae  should  betake  himself 
at  once  to  Rome ;  for  the  constant  intercourse  with  the  capital  of  the  empire  would  easily 
furnish  him  with  an  opportunity,  and  he  might  hope  for  greater  security  from  the  distance 
and  the  immense  population  of  the  metropolis.  Nor  is  it  at  all  strange,  that  a  teacher  of 
the  church  at  Colossae  should  be  induced,  by  the  dangers  that  threatened  pure  Christianity 
there,  to  travel  as  far  as  Rome  in  order  to  consult  the  apostle  and  to  solicit  his  assistance; 


294  THE    FALSE   TEACHERS   AT   COLOSS^E. 

their  condition  from  an  eminent  individual  belonging  to  the  church  of 
Colossse,  Epaphras,  the  founder  of  that  and  of  the  neighboring  Christian 
communities.  He  visited  Paul  at  Rome,  and  gave  practical  proofs  of  his 
sympathy,*  and  through  him  the  apostle  learnt  how  very  many  things, 
which  had  happened  in  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia  during  his  absence, 
required  to  be  vigorously  counteracted. 

During  the  preceding  year,  a  new  influence  emanating  from  Judaism" 
had  been  developed  in  those  regions ; — an  influence  with  which  Chris- 
tianity had  hitherto  not  come  in  contact,  but  which  now  threatened  to 
mingle  with  it,  and  to  endanger  its  purity  and  simplicity.  It  might  be 
expected  that  Christianity  on  its  first  spread  among  the  Jews,  would 
chiefly  come  in  contact  with  the  Pharisaic  mode  of  thinking  which  was 
then  predominant.  Hence  the  first  false  teachers,  with  whom  Paul  had 
hitherto  been  so  often  in  conflict,  had  originated  in  a  mingling  of  Phari- 
saic Judaism  with  Christianity.  But  now,  after  Christianity  had  spread 
further  among  the  Jews,  and  had  attracted  the  attention  of  those  who 
lived  in  greater  retirement,  and  troubled  themselves  little  about  the 
novelties  of  the  day,  its  influence  affected  sects  that  had  long  existed 
among  the  Jews  of  a  theosophic-ascetic  character,  such  as  that  of  the 
Essenes.f     Persons  of  such  a  tendency  must  have  felt  themselves  at- 

though  we  cannot  determine  with  certainty  whether  other  personal  concerns  did  not  also 
bring  Epaphras  to  Rome.  Neither  can  the  fact  that  Paul,  when  at  Rome,  desired  a  lodg- 
ing to  be  in  readiness  for  him  at  Colossse,  determine  anything;  for  though  he  had  at  an 
earlier  period  formed  the  intention  to  travel  first  into  Spain,  yet,  as  we  have  already  re- 
marked, he  might  be  induced,  by  the  information  respecting  the  changes  in  the  churches 
of  Lesser  Asia,  to  alter  his  plan.  Nor  is  it  otherwise  thau  natural,  that,  during  his  con- 
finement at  Rome,  he  should  collect  around  him  younger  men,  who  at  other  times  had  been 
used  to  serve  as  companions  and  instruments  in  his  ministry,  and  that  he  should  now  make 
use  of  them  in  order  to  maintain  with  the  distant  churches,  of  whose  situation  he  could  re- 
ceive information  through  various  channels  at  Rome,  a  living  connexion  adapted  to  their 
necessities. 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  Paul,  in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  calls  this  Epaphras  his  "fellow- 
prisoner  in  Chtisi  Jesus."  As  he  thus  distinguishes  him  from  his  other  fellow-laborers,  we 
may  oonclude  that  it  could  be  affirmed  only  of  Epaphras.  Since  the  judical  inquiry  insti- 
tuted against  Paul  would  have  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Roman  magistrates  to  the  new 
religious  party  that  were  opposed  to  the  religion  of  the  state,  it  may  be  supposed  that  this 
led  to  the  apprehension  of  Epaphras,  who  had  labored  so  zealously  on  behalf  of  this  cause 
in  Lesser  Asia.  But  it  is  against  this  opinion,  that  he  is  not  mentioned  with  this  epithet 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  unless  we  suppose  that  the  apprehension  of  Epaphras  did 
not  occur  till  after  that  epistle  was  written.  Still  it  is  fair  to  suppose,  that  he  was  distin- 
tinguished  by  this  epithet  to  Philemon  only  as  a  faithful  companion  of  the  apostle  in  his 
confinement ;  as  on  the  other  hand  he  is  distinguished  by  another  epithet  in  the  epistle  to 
the  whole  church  at  Colossae;  and  this  title  of  honor  (6  evvaixiualuTos  /xov)  is  applied,  in 
the  same  epistle,  to  Aristarchus,  who  had  accompanied  the  apostle  in  his  confinement. 

f  Storr's  opinion  that  the  Jewish- Christian  sect  at  Colossse  was  derived  immediately 
from  the  Essenes,  who  yet  can  be  regarded  only  as  one  manifestation  of  this  general  men- 
tal tendency,  is  not  supported  by  sufficient  evidence.  Yet  it  is  not  a  decisive  objection 
against  it,  that  the  Essenes  had  not  spread  themselves  beyond  Palestine,  and  showed  no 
inclination  for  proselytism;  for  by  the  influence  of  Christianity,  it  is  vory  possible  that  the 


THE   FALSE   TEACHERS   AT  COLOSS^E.  295 

tracted,  still  more  than  Jews  of  the  common  Pharisaical  bias,  by  what 
Christianity  presented  that  was  suited  to  the  internal  religious  sentiment; 
only  they  were  too  much  entangled  in  their  mystical-ascetic  bias,  so  op- 
posite to  the  free,  practical  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  in  their  spiritual 
pride,  to  be  able  to  appropriate  the  gospel  simply  and  purely  with  a  re- 
nunciation of  the  preeminence  of  a  higher  religious  philosophy,  which 
they  fancied  themselves  to  possess,  and  of  a  higher  practical  perfection 
in  their  modes  of  abstinence.  They  must  have  been  rather  tempted  to 
remodel  Christianity  according  to  their  former  ideas  and  tendencies,  and 
to  recast  it  into  a  theosophic  form  of  their  own.  We  here  see  a  ten 
dency,  first  germinating  in  the  circle  of  Judaism,  from  which,  in  the  fol 
lowing  century,  manifold  branches  proceeded  of  a  Gnosticism  that  was 
hostile  to  the  simple  gospel.*  Paul  had  probably  cause,  from  his  expe- 
rience during  his  long  sojourn  in  Lesser  Asia,  to  apprehend  the  spring- 
ing up  of  a  tendency  so  injurious  to  the  gospel,  and  hence  we  may  ac- 
count for  his  warnings  addressed  to  the  presbyters  of  the  Ephesian 
church.  His  apprehensions  were  now  verified.  Jewish  false  teachers 
of  this  tendency  had  made  their  way  into  the  church  at  Colossje.  What 
distinguished  them  from  the  common  pharisaically-minded  Jewish  Chris- 
tians was  this, — that  they  did  not  begin  with  recommending  to  the  Gen- 
tiles the  observance  of  Jewish  ceremonies,  as  indispensable  for  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification,  and  for  obtaining  eternal  happiness.  Had  they 
proceeded  in  this  manner,  they  would  in  all  probability  not  have  found 

original  character  of  such  a  sect  might  be  somewhat  modified.  And  I  would  by  no  means 
adduce  against  it,  what  is  said  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colcssians,  not  merely  of  the  practically 
ascetic,  but  also  of  the  theosophic  tendency  of  this  sect  (their  (puoaocpia).  since  we  cannot 
trust  what  Philo  says  of  the  Essenes  as  the  ideal  of  practical  philosophers.  See  my  Church 
History,  vol.  i.  p.  47.  But  although  in  this  epistle  some  marks  may  be  found  which  suit 
the  Essenes,  as,  for  instance,  what  is  said  of  abstinence,  of  chastising  the  body,  of  the  ob- 
servance of  the  ceremonial  law,  of  the  reverence  paid  to  angels,  &c. ;  yet  all  this  is  too 
general  not  to  suit  many  other  similar  manifestations,  arising  from  the  same  mental  ten- 
dency; and  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  nothing  which  marks  the  whole  peculiar  character 
of  the  Essenes.  As  a  proof  how  much  a  propensity  to  busy  themselves  with  angelology 
was  spread  among  the  Jews,  we  may  notice  the  words  in  the  nr'ipvyfia  Ylerpov,  in  which  it 
is  said:  /uTjdl  Kara  ,lov6aiovg  aejieade,  /cat  yup  knelvoi  oiofievoi  rbv  6eov  yivuaKeiv,  ovtc 
iniaravrai,  2,arpevovTec  dyyelotg  /cat  upxayyiTioir,  (Nor  worship  according  to  the  Jews, 
for  truly  they,  thinking  that  they  know  God,  do  not  understand,  being  subject  to  angels 
and  archangels.)  See  Clement.  Slromata,  vi.  635,  Grabe.  Spicileg.  i.  64.  If  also  an 
intention  was  contained  in  these  words  to  indicate  a  subordinate  place  to  Judaism,  as  a  re- 
ligious system  communicated  by  angels  (the  idea  which  at  a  later  period  was  improved 
upon  by  the  Gnostics),  the  doctrine  in  vogue  among  the  Jews  concerning  angels,  and  their 
connexion  with  them,  might  serve  as  a  point  of  connexion  for  this  censure. 

*  Baur  and  Schwegler  are  disposed  to  find  in  these  appearances  the  marks  of  a  post- 
apostolic  age,  and  make  use  of  the  smaller  Paulinian  epistles,  in  order  to  support  the  fabri- 
cation of  a  peculiar  post-apostolic  literature:  we  maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  exactly 
such  mixtures  of  the  religious  spirit  as  we  here  find,  serve  to  elucidate  the  transition  from 
the  Pauline  to  the  succeeding  age.  The  course  of  historical  development  would  allow  ua 
to  assume  such  links;  even  if  unquestionable  records  had  not  borne  evidence  of  their  ex- 
istence. 


296  THE   FALSE   TEaCUEES    AT    COLOSSI. 

an  entrance  so  easily  into  churches  consisting  purely  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. But  they  boasted  of  the  knowledge  of  a  higher  wisdom  trans- 
mitted by  tradition  among  the  consecrated,*  a  higher  knowledge  of  the 
spiritual  world,  with  which  they  pretended  to  stand  in  a  closer  con- 
nexion, a  connexion  which  they  could  -procure  for  those  who  were  dis- 
posed to  be  initiated  into  their  mysteries.  With  this  theoretical  tendency 
they  joined  a  strict  asceticism  in  practice,  which  was  probably  in  close 
connexion  with  their  theosophic  principles,  and  had  its  foundation  in 
their  notions  of  matter,  as  the  source  and  principle  of  evil;  and  thus  also 
many  particulars  in  their  rules  for  abstaining  from  certain  things,  which 
it  would  be  injurious  to  touch  or  taste,  may  be  referred  not  simply  to 
the  Jewish  laws  respecting  food,  but  to  their  peculiar  theoretic  doctrines. 

The  history  of  religion  acquaints  us  with  a  twofold  tendency  of  mysti- 
cism ;  one  that  adheres  to  the  prevailing  cultus,  and  professes  to  disclose 
its  higher  meaning  :  another  that  wears  a  hostile  aspect  towards  it,  and 
entirely  despises  what  in  it  is  external  and  historical.  This  contrariety 
had  already  made  its  appearance  in  the  Jewish  philosophical  religion  at 
Alexandria.  Among  the  Jews  in  that  place,  a  class  of  religious  Idealists 
had  been  formed,  who,  viewing  the  historical  and  the  literal  in  religion 
only  as  the  covering  or  vehicle  of  general  ideas,  drew  the  inference  that 
the  attainment  of  perfection  depended  on  holding  fast  those  ideas,  while 
all  besides  was  abandoned  to  the  childish  multitude,  who  were  incapable 
of  higher  conceptions,  and  satisfied  with  the  outward  husk  of  sensible 
objects.f  Philo,  in  whom  we  have  an  example  of  the  first  tendency, 
combats,  although  agreeing  with  them  in  the  principles  of  allegorical 
interpretations,  those  despisers  of  the  letter;  while  he  taught  that  it  was 
possible  only  by  spiritual  intuition  to  penetrate  into  the  true  internal 
meaning  of  religion,  and  to  know  those  mysteries  of  which  outward  Ju- 
daism presented  the  symbols.  But  he  also  taught,  that  in  proportion  to 
the  conscientious  reverence  with  which  the  external  was  contemplated, 
would  be  the  progress,  through  divine  illumination,  in  the  examination  of 
the  internal.^  This  last  tendency  we  must  suppose  to  exist  in  the  sect  of 
which  we  are  now  speaking. 

In  however  slight  a  degree  a  party  of  common  Judaizers  would  have 
been  dangerous  to  the  church  at  Colossse,  yet  Judaism  under  this  rnodi- 

*  Perhaps  they  themselves  used  the  term  ^cWoao^ia,  since  this  appellation,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  mixture  of  Oriental  and  Grecian  ideas  at  this  time,  might  have  been  used,  as 
well  as  the  word  yvQoic  afterwards  employed  among  the  Jewish  theosophic  sects  to  desig- 
nate their  pretended  mysteries. 

\  Thus  characterized  by  Philo :  ol  roix  farovc  vojiovq  av/ufSoXa  votjtuv  npayfidruv 
vrToXapftdvovTeg,  tu  filv  uyuv  7jKpif3uaav,  tuv  6e  fiadv/iuv  uXiyupijcav,  (those  who  regard 
written  laws  as  the  symbols  of  things  that  lie  within  the  province  of  the  understanding, 
have  examined  some  things  very  accurately,  but  have  neglected  other  things  with  easy 
indifference.)     See  his  work,  De  Migratione  Abrahami,  p.  16. 

X  Philo's  words  are  :  Qvlarroptvuv  tovtuv  (the  external,  the  letter,)  dpifyXoTepov  nal 
tKelva  yvupioOijoETaL 


THE  FALSE  TEACHERS  AT  COLOSSI.  29*? 

fication  would  be  far  more  dangerous  for  many.  For  the  people  of  that 
age  who  were  filled  with  anxiety  for  a  communication  with  heaven,  and 
for  the  investigation  of  the  invisible  stretching  beyond  the  limits  of 
earthly  existence,  the  promise  of  a  higher  knowledge  that  to  a  certain 
extent  would  release  them  from  the  thraldom  of  the  senses,  was  very 
seducing.  The  seeking  for  this  knowledge  had  led  many  to  Christian- 
ity, which,  while  it  brought  them  to  a  consciousness  of  the  real  wants , 
of  their  religious  and  moral  nature,  for  which  it  guaranteed  the  relief, 
communicated-  on  the  other  hand  another  tendency  to  their  minds  ; 
but  before  it  had  thoroughly  penetrated  their  life  and  thoughts,  it  might 
easily  happen  that  such  illusions,  falling  in  with  a  previous  and  only  par 
tially  conquered  tendency,  would  deceive  them  by  the  dazzling  appear 
ance  of  something  higher  than  what  was  offered  them  in  the  simple  and 
ever  practical  doctrine  of  the  apostles.  Moreover,  in  a  country  like 
Phrygia,  where  a  propensity  for  the  mystical  and  magical  was  always 
rite,  as  was  evident  from  the  forms  of  religion  peculiar  to  the  country — 
the  worship  of  Cybele,  and  afterwards  Montanism — *  such  -a  tendency 
would  be  specially  dangerous  to  Christianity. 

Paul  describes  the  higher  philosophy  of  religion  of  which  these  people 
boasted,  as  the  following  of  human  traditions,!  as  a  cleaving  to  the  ele- 
ments]; of  the  world,  and  as  not  proceeding  from  Christ.  He  objects  to 
the  preachers  of  this  doctrine,  that  they  did  not  adhere  to  Christ  as  the 
head.  From  this  it  has  been  incorrectly  inferred  by  many,  that  these 
persons  were  in  no  sense  Christians.  But  the  main  point  in  Paul's  dis- 
approval of  them  is  this,  that  their  doctrine,  although  connected  with 
Christianity,  was  in  contradiction  to  its  spirit  and  nature, — that  although 
they  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  therefore  as  their  Lord  and 
Head,  yet  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  their  doctrine  were  at  variance  with 
this  acknowledgement,  since  they  did  not  everywhere  in  accordance  with 

*  Compare  Bohmer's  Isagoge  in  Epistolam  ad  Coloss.,  p.  9. 

f  Not  proceeding  from  what  the  Spirit  of  God  had  revealed. 

\  The  "  elements  of  the  world,"  oToixtia  tov  Kocfiov,  in  Col.  ii.  8,  and  other  passages, 
are  not  necessarily  to  be  understood,  it  appears  to  me,  as  is  commonly  explained,  of  the 
rudimenta  religionis,  as  well  of  Judaism  as  of  Heathenism.  I  must  regard  this  explana- 
tion as  purely  arbitrary,  since  there  is  nothing  in  conneclion  with  the  word  oroixela  which 
can  point  to  this  figurative  use  of  it ;  and  nothing  by  which  to  indicate  the  special  sphere 
to  which  the  rudiments  here  spoken  of  belong.  The  passage  in  Heb.  v.  12,  is  on  a  wholly 
different  subject,  and  should  not  therefore  be  here  taken  into  account.  A  comparison  of 
all  the  Pauline  passages,  and  the  Pauline  association  of  ideas,  seems  to  me  to  favor  our 
understanding  the  phrase  of  the  elements  of  the  world  in  a  peculiar  sense,  as  denoting  the 
earthly,  elsewhere  termed  "  the  carnal,"  tu  oapniKu.  Hence  ii.  20,  orocxeia  tov  koo/iov 
and  KoayiOQ  may  be  considered  as  sjmonymous. 

This  is  an  important  conception  in  the  Pauline  doctrine,  and  we  shall  treat  more  at 
lergth  of  it  in  the  Section  devoted  specially  to  doctrines.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  the 
harmony  between  this  epistle  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, — such  harmony  as  could 
come,  not  from  an  imitator,  but  only  from  the  author  himself, — belongs  arrong  the  marks 
of  ^he  undeniably  genuine  Pauline  character  of  this  epl-Ue. 


£98  THE  FALSE  TEACHERS  AT  COLOSSI. 

it,  set  out  from  their  relation  to  him  in  their  striving  after  a  knowledge 
of  divine  things,  and  make  him  their  central  point.  In  fact,  it  is  only  on 
the  supposition  that  they  professed  to  attach  themselves  to  the  Christian 
faith,  that  this  disapproval  retains  its  full  significance. 

It  would  indeed  be  possible  so  to  explain  the  relation  of  these  persons 
to  Christianity,*  that  they  did  not  come  forward  in  direct  hostility  against 
it,  but  yet  ascribed  to  it  only  a  subordinate  importance  in  their  religious 
development — that  they  acknowledged  Christ  only  as  the  prophet  of  the 
heathen  world,  which  hitherto  had  known  nothing  of  the  true  God,  and 
attributed  to  the  religion  revealed  by  him  only  a  subordinate  value  for  the 
religious  culture  of  the  heathen.f  They  perhaps  taught  that  by  their  con- 
nexion with  the  hidden  supreme  God  which  was  effected  through  Judaism, 
they  were  raised  above  the  revelations  of  the  Mediator,  the  Logos,  and  thus 
above  Christianity,  and  thereby  obtained  the  power  to  employ  higher 
spirits  themselves  in  their  service.^     According  to  this  view,  we  may 

*  This  view  has  been  recently  developed  with  much  skill  and  in  an  acute  and  spirited 
manner  by  Dr.  Schneckenburger,  in  his  work  on  the  Baptism  of  Proselytes.  It  has  been 
developed  anew  by  him  in  his  Beitrage  zur  Einhitung  ill's  neue  Testament,  p.  M6. 

f  Among  the  Jewish  theologians,  there  were  those  who  had  borrowed  from  the  Platonic 
philosophy  the  doctrine  of  the  constellations,  regarding  these  as  in  a  certain  sense  deoi  dca- 
dnTol;  and  who  accordingly  explained  the  passage  in  Deut.  iv.  19,  as  meaning  that  God 
had  left  the  adoration  of  the  heavenly  bodies  to  other  nations,  as  occupying  a  subordinate  re- 
ligious position,  but  had  revealed  himself  only  to  the  Jews.  This  view  might  afterwards 
be  further  modified,  that  God  had  given  the  Logos  or  Jesus  to  the  heathen  as  their 
teacher  and  governor,  but  that  the  knowledge  and  worship  of  the  Supreme  God  was  only 
to  be  found  among  the  Jews.  Since  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  has  put 
into  Trypho's  mouth  what  the  Jewish  theologians  of  that  time  were  in  the  habit  of  saying, 
we  may  consider  him  as  expressing  their  views,  when  Justin  makes  him  to  say ;  ecru 
i[iijv  £!;  tdi'uv  Kvpiog  koI  debs  yvupi^o/ievog,  tSf  at  ypaipal  as/J.aivovacv,otTiveg  Kal  dnb  tov 
ovb/iarog  avrov  Xpioriavol  naXeiodai  ttuvtec  eaxr/Kare'  Tjfitic  6e  tov  deoi)  Kal  avrbv  tovtov 
TTOiijGavTOc  karpevTal  ovrec,  ov  6e6/ieda  T?jg  ouoAbyiag  avrov,  oi6e  t;/c  npoaKWtjO-eug.  (Ye 
who  are  of  the  Gentiles,  lot  your  Lord  and  God  be  made  known,  as  the  Scriptures  declare, 
who  also,  from  the  name  of  your  God,  have  all  been  called  Christians ;  but  we,  who  are 
worshippers  of  the  God  that  made  yours,  need  not  confess  yours,  nor  worship  him.)  The 
doctrine  of  the  Clementines  also  maybe  here  compared.  According  to  this  work,  Christian- 
ity contained  in  a  form  of  revelation  designed  for  heathens,  the  same  as  original  Judaism 
purified  from  foreign  admixtures,  so  that  he  who  adhered  to  Jesus  alone,  as  well  as  he 
Who  adhered  to  Moses  alone,  could  attain  to  a  participation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  pro- 
vided the  latter  did  not  transgress  by  blaspheming  Christ,  and  the  former  by  blaspheming 
Moses.  If  a  Jew,  with  a  greater  partiality  for  Judaism,  contemplated  Christianity,  yet  the 
same  fundamental  principle  could  easily  be  so  modified,  that  genuine  Judaism,  appre- 
hended in  the  spirit  of  it,  would  apppear  more  valuable  ti-an  that  form  of  revelation  which 
was  specially  intended  for  the  Gentiles. 

X  The  idea  was  certainly  to  be  found  among  the  Gnostics  of  the  second  century,  and 
meets  us  in  the  Indian  religious  systems,  and  in  Buddhism,  that  men,  by  communion  with 
the  Supreme  original  being,  obtained  power  to  make  use  of  inferior  spirits  for  their  own 
ends,  and  that  in  this  manner  wonderful  things  could  be  accomplished  by  their  aid.  Here 
the  contrast  which  Philo  makes  between  the  vIoIq  tov  Aoyov  and  the  vlolg  tov  bvroq  may 
be  applied,  only  in  a  somewhat  modified  form ;  for  the  Alexandrian  theologians  of 
Philo's  school  attached  no  importance  to  the  connexion  with  angels,  since  they  comprised 


THE   FALSE   TEACHERS    AT   COLOSS^E.  299 

suppose  that  these  persons,  with  their  pretended  spiritual  conception  of 
Judaism,  had  formed  the  same  judgment  respecting  the  subordinate 
conceptions  of  Christianity,  as  many  of  the  later  Gnostics  with  their 
spiritualised  Christianity  were  accustomed  to  pass  on  Judaism  as  the 
religion  of  the  Demiurgus. 

But  although  such  a  conception  of  the  peculiarites  of  this  sect  is  possi- 
ble, yet  it  is  by  no  means  sufficiently  supported  by  the  marks  derived  from 
Paul's  argumentation.  Had  they  sought  actually  to  seduce  from  Chris- 
tianity those  among  whom  they  found  entrance,  Paul  would  certainly 
have  marked  this  more  strongly.  His  reasonings  indeed,  as  they  are 
carried  on  in  this  epistle,  would  apply  to  those  persons  who,  though  en- 
gaged in  no  immediate  and  open  opposition  to  Christianity,  yet  assigned 
to  it  a  very  subordinate  place  ;*  but  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  he 
combats  them  by  no  means  justifies  us  in  concluding  that  this  special 
view  of  theirs  was  the  direct  object  of  his  censure.  Since  he  reproves 
these  persons  for  their  reverence  of  angels,  it  follows  that  they  placed 
themselves  in  a  subordinate  relation  to  angels,  and  hence  certainly  to  the 
Logos,  a  being  exalted  above  all  angels  (the  dpxdyyeXog).  Had  they 
maintained  that  by  an  immediate  connexion  with  the  hidden  God,  they 
could  exalt  themselves  above  the  Logos  and  his  revelation,  Paul  would 
without  doubt  have  expressed,  in  direct  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  the 
fundamental  principle,  that  men  can  enter  into  connexion  with  the  Father 
only  through  the  Logos.  He  makes  use,  it  is  true,  of  this  principle,  but 
in  reference  to  a  different  controversy. 

In  that  Judaizing  sect  which  here  came  into  conflict  with  the 
simple  apostolic  doctrine,  we  see  the  germ  of  the  Judaizing  Gnos- 
ticism. Though  the  account  given  by  Epiphanius  of  the  conflict 
between  Cerinthus  and  the  apostle  Paul  is  not  worthy  of  credit, 
yet  at  least  between  the  tendency  which  Paul  here  combats  and 
the  tendency  of  Cerinthus  the  greatest  agreement  is  found  to  exist, 
and,  judging  by  internal  marks,  we  may  consider  the  sect  here  spoken 
of  to  be  allied  to  the  Cerinthian.  It  is  remarkable  that,  to  a  late  pe- 
riod, traces  of  such  a  Judaizing,  angelological  tendency  were  to  be  found 
in  those  parts,  for  at  the  council  of  Laodicea  canons  were  framed  against 
a  Judaizing  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  a  species  of  angelolatry,f 

everything  in  the  contact  of  the  spirit  with  God  himself;  and  the  contemplation  of  ideas. 
In  the  sect  here  spoken  of,  the  oriental-foepsophic  rather  than  the  Grecian-philosophic 
element  of  Philo's  theology  is  prominent. 

*  Schneckenburger  has  specially  developed  this  view  in  his  late  essay  on  this  subject. 

\  Can.  xx.  oTi  ov  6el  Xpianavolg  iovdal&iv  koI  ev  t£>  tra/3/3aru  axoAa^eiv.  (That  it  is 
not  necessary  that  Christians  should  Judaize,  and  have  nothing  to  do  on  the  Sabbath.) 
Can.  xvi.  ordains:  h  oafiiluTLt  evayyiXia  /lerd.  irspuv  ypacjiuv  (the  Old  Testament)  uvayi- 
vucaeaBat.  (On  the  Sabbath  the  Gospels,  with  other  Scriptures,  are  to  be  read.)  Can. 
xxxv.  oti  ov  del  XpiaTiavovg  eyKaTaleineLV  tjjv  EKKkrjoiav  tov  deov  Kal  uyyelovg  bvofid' 
&iv  ical  cvvdfrig. — (That  it  is  not  necessary  that  Christians  should  forsake  the  church  of 
God  and  address  angels,  and  that  meetings)— for  paying  reverence  to  angels. — The 
following  canon  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  as  indicating  the   predominant  and   peculiar 


300  THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE   COLOSSI ANS. 

and  even  in  the  ninth  century  we  find  a  kindred  sect,  the  Athin- 
ganians.* 

In  the  example  of  Paul  we  recognise  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
apostolic  mode  of  refuting  error,  and  how  it  diners  from  that  of  later 
times.  While  this  busies  itself  with  the  confutation  of  particular  errors, 
Paul,  on  the  contrary,  seized  the  real  root  of  the  doctrine  in  its  peculiar 
religious  fundamental  tendency  from  which  all  the  particular  errors  pro- 
ceeded, and  opposed  to  it  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  His  method  was 
rather  positive  than  negative.  Thus  he  repressed  the  boasting  of  a  pre- 
tended superior  wisdom  and  of  a  delusive  acquaintance  with  spirits, 
without  setting  himself  to  oppose  each  separate  particular,  by  exhibiting 
a  truth  that  marks  the  central  point  of  Christianity  ;  that  by  communion 
with  Christ  alone  we  receive  all  the  fulness  of  the  divine  life  ;f  by  him 
alone  we  are  incorporated  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  we  belong  to 
that  same  kingdom  to  which  all  higher  spirits  belong,  by  union  with  him 
as  the  common  head  of  the  whole  ;  in  him  we  have  all  things  which  are 
needed  for  the  development  of  the  internal  life,  and  hence  we  need  no 
other  Mediator.  For  the  purpose  of  combating  a  painful  superstition, 
which  represented  this  and  the  other  object  as  polluting  and  hurtful,  and 
recommended  various  preservatives  for  warding  off  the  influence  of  evil 

mental  tendency:  on  ov  del  lepaTiKovg  j}  kXtjplkov^  fidyovg  fj  knaoiSovc  elvai  rj  fiaOri/iaTi- 
kov(  f/  acTpo'Kbyovq  ij  itolelv  rd  leyo/xeva  <pv?iaKTJ]pia.  (That  it  is  not  necessary  that 
priests  or  the  clergy  should  be  wise  men,  or  poeta,  or  mathematicians,  or  astrologers,  or 
makers  of  the  so-called  amulets.)  Theodoret  says,  in  his  commentary  on  this  epistle  (ii. 
18),  that  this  superstition  for  a  long  time  maintained  itself  in  Phrygia  and  Pisidia,  and  that 
in  his  day,  oratories  were  to  be  found  in  this  and  the  adjacent  districts  dedicated  to  the 
Archangel  Michael. 

*  See  my  Church  History,  vol.  iii.  p.  592. 

f  The  arbitrary  manner  in  which  Baur  and  Schwegler  attempt  to  prove  the  Gnostio 
element  in  this  epistle,  and  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Philippians,  requires  no 
refutation.  No  one  who  is  not  held  by  a  fixed  delusion,  can  think  of  finding  in  the 
use  of  the  word  "fulness,"  nXrjpufia,  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  a 
reference  to  the  gnostic  doctrine  of  a  Pleroma.  The  use  of  this  word  in  these  epistles  is 
most  naturally  accounted  for,  from  the  peculiar  Pauline  circle  of  ideas,  of  which  the  germ 
lies  at  the  basis  of  the  other  Pauline  epistles,  but  here  appears  more  fully  expanded,  aa  be- 
longing to  this  stage  of  his  doctrinal  development,  and  required  by  the  subject  in  hand. 
"We  shall  have  more  to  say  respecting  it  in  the  second  section  relating  to  doctrine,  and 
shall  then  enter  more  fully  into  the  refutation  of  the  asserted  difference  of  doctrine  between 
this  and  the  earlier  epistles  of  Paul.  How  far  is  the  pure,  practical  spirit  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  from  everything  Gnostic !  Where,  in  the  second  century,  could  the  mental 
tendency  be  found  from  which  such  an  epistle  could  proceed?  where  the  man  who  could 
write  such  an  epistle  ?  According  to  the  whimsical  notion  of  the  newest  of  all  criticism, 
the  most  powerful  minds,  who  were  capable  of  the  greatest  things,  existed  in  that  age, 
who  yet  found  their  satisfaction  in  living  in  profound  obscurity.  But  as  error  and  truth 
go  together  in  the  developing  processes  of  history,  and  mutually  check  and  modify  one 
another,  so  the  springing  up  of  sects  at  the  close  of  the  Pauline  age,  and  the  later  stage  in 
the  impress  of  the  apostolic  doctrine,  constitute  a  middle  link  presupposed  by  tho  formation 
of  the  gnosis  in  the  second  century.  The  criticism  which  we  combat,  springs  over  this 
middle  link  by  an  unhistorical  hysteron-proteron. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   COLOSSIANS.  301 

spirits,*  he  appealed  to  the  facts  of  Christian  consciousness ;  that  Chris- 
tians were  redeemed  from  the  power  of  evil,  and,  in  communion  with 
Christ,  were  certain  of  their  triumph  over  all  the  powers  of  darkness — 
that  as  their  inner  life  was  exalted  above  the  reach  of  earthly  things,  to 
which  they  were  dead  with  Christ,  that  as  it  already  belonged  to  heaven, 
with  which  they  were  incorporated  through  Christ,  so  it  ought  to  be 
altogether  carried  out  of  the  reach  of  a  religion  cleaving  to  the  senses  ; 
nor  ought  Christians  to  allow  this  their  life  thus  exalted  to  heaven  and 
rooted  in  communion  with  God,  to  be  dragged  down  to  the  elements  of 
the  world,  to  sensible  earthly  things. — "  See  to  it,"  said  the  apostle, 
"  that  no  one  robs  you  of  your  Christian  freedom,  that  no  one  drags  you 
along  as  his  prey  by  the  worthless  deceitful  semblance  of  a  pretended 
higher  wisdom  which  follows  human  traditions,  cleaves  to  the  elements 
of  the  world,  and  proceeds  not  from  Christ.  Everything  which  does  not 
proceed  from  him  is  delusion  ;  for  the  whole  church  of  God,  which  be- 
longs to  him  as  his  body,  exists  in  dependence  on  him  ;  and  through 
him,  who  is  the  common  head  of  all  the  powers  of  the  spiritual  world, 
are  ye,  who  before  were  as  Gentiles  excluded  from  the  development  of 
God's  kingdom,  now  incorporated  with  it.  He  has  obtained  for  you  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  and  thus  has  also  freed  you  from  the  law  which  testi- 
fied against  you  as  an  indictment,  having  blotted  it  out.  By  his  suffer- 
ings he  has  triumphed  over  the  whole  kingdom  of  evil,  so  that  weak- 
ened as  it  is,  you,  as  redeemed,  no  longer  need  to  fear  it.  Since  through 
Christ  you  have  been  made  free  from  the  guilt  that  oppressed  you,  from 
the  yoke  of  the  law  and  from  the  fear  of  the  kingdom  of  evil,  so  let  no 
one  of  you  hazard  becoming  slaves  again,  and  condemn  yourselves  on 
account  of  those  outward  things,  all  of  which  were  only  shadows  of  what 
was  to  come ;  but  in  Christ  we  behold  the  reality  itself.  May  no  one 
succeed  in  beguiling  you  in  reference  to  your  highest  interests  (merely 
because  it  so  pleases  him — for  his  own  arbitrary  pleasure)  by  the  appear- 
ance of  a  humility  put  on  for  show,  by  the  worship  of  angels,  since  he  is 
disposed  to  pry  into  what  is  hidden  from  manf — for  such  a  one,  with  all 

*  With  the  doctrine  of  various  orders  of  angels,  this  sect  certainly  combined  the  doc- 
trine of  various  orders  of  evil  spirits.  These  evil  spirits  were  considered  as  specially  con- 
nected with  matter  (nvev/iara  v?llku).  By  sensuality,  and  especially  by  the  enjoyment  of 
certain  kinds  of  food,  men  were  especially  exposed  to  their  influence ;  and  by  chastening 
the  body,  and  abstaining  from  the  indulgence  of  the  senses,  men  were  withdrawn  from 
their  influence. 

f  In  the  passage,  Col.  ii.  18,  that  reading  which  omits  the  fifj  has  much  in  its  favor,  the 
authority  of  the  more  important  manuscripts,  and  the  comparison  with  the  other  reading, 
oi>/t,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  similar  gloss.  It  is  also  more  easy  to  explain  how  the 
connexion  of  the  whole  verse  might  occasion  the  interpolation  of  the  negative,  than  how 
it  should  occasion  its  rejection,  by  which  it  is  only  made  more  difficult.  If  this  reading  be 
adopted,  we  must  understand  the  passage  thus:  "He  pries  into  what  (as  he  indeed 
imagines)  he  has  seen,  the  appearances  of  angels — puffed  up  by  the  delusive  images,  which 
are  only  a  reflection  of  the  sensuality  that  prevails  over  him,  of  his  sensual  earthly  ten- 
dency to  which  he  drags  down  the  objects  of  religion,  the  invisible."  And  in  this  case 
the  contrast  would  bo  very  suitable ;  he  adheres  not  in  his  faith  to  the  invisible  Head. 


302  THE    EPISTLE   TO   THE   COLOSSIANS. 

his  appearance  of  humility  and  spiritual  life,  is  puffed  up  with  an  un 
godly  mind,  which  places  its  confidence  in  a  nullity  ;  he  can  exalt  himself 
neither  above  the  world  nor  to  Christ,  for  he  does  not  hold  fast  the  Head 
from  which  alone  the  body,  animated,  by  it  and  held  together  by  its  in- 
fluence in  all  its  members,  can  develop  itself  to  the  end  designed  by  God. 
How  is  it,  if  ye  are  dead  with  Christ  to  the  things  of  the  world,  that  ye 
can  adopt  as  if  ye  belonged  to  the  world,  such  maxims  as,  Touch  not 
this,  taste  not  that;  since  all  this,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  these 
persons,  will  only  by  the  use  tend  to  destruction  !  Which  doctrines  cer- 
tainly have  an  appearance  of  wisdom  in  the  arbitrarily  invented  worship 
of  God,  the  show  of  humility,  and  the  chastening  of  the  body ;  but  are 
yet  purely  things  which  have  no  significance,  and  only  serve  to  gratify 
an  ungodly  mind.  If,  therefore,  ye  are  risen  with  Christ,  seek  after  that 
which  is  above :  let  your  thoughts  be  directed  thither  where  Christ  is, 
who  is  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God  :  let  your  wishes  be  fixed  only 
on  heaven."  This  aim  towards  heaven,  this  life  rooted  in  God,  was 
always  set  in  opposition  by  Paul  to  the  superstition  that  would  drag 
down  divine  knowledge  to  the  objects  of  sense. 

This  epistle  was  conveyed  to  the  church  at  Colossse  by  Tychicus,  one 
of  the  missionary  assistants  of  Paul,  who  was  returning  to  Lesser  Asia, 
his  native  country.  But  since  Paul  could  not  furnish  him  with  epistles 
for  all  the  Asiatic  churches,  and  yet  would  gladly  have  testified  his  lively 
interest  in  all,  and  wished,  as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  to  address  a 
word  to  all  collectively,  he  prepared  a  circular  letter  designed  for  all 
the  churches  in  that  region.  In  this  epistle,  in  which  the  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  addressed  himself  to  all  Gentile  Christians  as  such,  he  treats 
only  of  one  great  subject  of  general  interest,  the  actual  efficiency  of  the 
gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  without  entering  upon  other  topics.*  The 
similarity  of  the  two  epistles  (the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  and  the  so- 
called  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians)  is  of  such  a  kind,  that  we  see  in  it  the 
work  of  the  same  author,  and  not  an  imitation  by  another  hand.f     If 

But  yet  this  reading  appears  to  me  to  have  the  connexion  and  the  meaning  of  single  words 
too  much  against  it  for  me  to  admit  it.  The  "intruding  into,"  typaTeveiv,  appears  to  me 
too  plainly  to  designate  an  impertinent  eagerness  to  pry  into  what  is  hidden  from  human 
sight,  and  to  presuppose  the  negative  fuj  ;  and  if  the  apostle  had  wished  to  mark  supposed 
appearances  of  angels,  he  would  certainly  not  have  said  "  has  seen,"  kupanev,  without  some 
further  limitation,  Bome  additional  phrase,  with  which  the  following  "vainly,"  eUrj, might 
be  connected ;  as,  for  example,  by  saying  "  thinks  that  he  has  seen,"  lupaicivai  doicel, 
this  vision  would  have  been  marked  as  deceptive  and  presumptuous. 

*  It  was  so  far  a  happy  thought  of  Schulz,  to  describe  this  epistle  as  a  companion  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

\  I  will  here  notice  some  of  the  doubts  that  have  been  raised  in  the  most  recent  times 
against  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians ;  those,  I  mean,  which  could  strike 
so  considerate  a  critic  as  De  Wette,  a  man  distinguished  by  so  much  love  for  truth,  and  so 
disposed  to  receive  it.  The  collocation  of  apostles  and  prophets  in  ch.  ii.  20;  iii.  5;  iv.  11, 
must  be  un-apostolical.  It  is  true,  such  a  phrase  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  tha  Pauline 
epistles,  but  it  is  not  on  that  account  to  be  set  down  as  something  un-Paulino,  or  foreign 
to  the  Pauline  age.     In  ch.  iv.  11,  the  Apostles,  so-called  in  a  stricter  sense,  aro  brought 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   EPHESIANS.  303 

hie  relation  of  this  circular  letter  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,'  and  ii 
that  by  which  in  its  form  and  contents  as  a  circular  letter  it  is  distin- 
guished from  the  other  Pauline  epistles  could  awaken  doubts  of  its  gen- 
uineness even  with  the  more  considerate  critics,  yet  precisely  those  pecu- 
liarities which  specially  distinguish  it,  taken  in  connection  with  the  com- 
mon Pauline  characteristics,  furnish  a  proof  of  its  genuineness.  Who  in 
the  second  century  could  have  formed  and  executed  the  purpose  to  forge,- 
after  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  such  an  encyclical  Epistle  to  .11  the 
Gentile  Christians,  in  no  part  of  which  there  could  be  found  a  morbid 
opposing  tendency,  except  by  the  eye  of  an  intoxicated  criticism  that 
can  detect  tendencies  in  the  simplest  things.  Let  us  remember  that 
Paul,  when  he  wrote  this  epistle,  was  still  full  of  those  thoughts  and  con- 
templations which  occupied  his  mind  when  he  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  ;  thus  Ave  can  account  for  those  points  of  resemblance  in  the 
second,  which  was  written  immediately  after  the  first.  And  hence  it  also 
is  evident,  that  of  these  two,  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  was  written 
first,  for  the  apostle's  thoughts  there  exhibit  themselves  in  their  original 

forward,  after  them  more  are  named  who  published  the  gospel  in  a  wide  circle,  whose 
activity  was  not  confined  to  one  congregation — the  common  missionaries,  the  evangelists, 
corresponding  to  what  the  "  teachers,"  diduanaloi,  were  for  single  congregations,  and  those 
in  whom  the  creative  element  of  immediate  spiritual  awakening  predominated,  who  re- 
ceived, by  special  revelations,  disclosures  respecting  Christian  truth,  (see  p.  176)  in  whom  the 
power  of  inspiration  appeared  especially  in  discourse,  who  as  teachers  stood  nearest  to  the 
apostles  in  originality,  the  prophets.  That  there  were  such  prophets,  who  as  missionaries 
stood  by  the  side  of  the  apostles,  is  testified  by  the  Acts,  and  apart  from  that,  by  the  name 
of  Barnabas,  and  by  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  A  later  writer  would  not  have  been  induced  to  place  to- 
gether in  this  manner  apostles  and  prophets ;  for  this  position  of  the  prophets  was  foreign  to 
a  later  period.  Of  the  Montanist  body  of  prophets,  to  whom  Baur  and  Schwegler  allude,  there 
is  no  trace  in  this  epistle ;  and  indeed,  generally,  we  should  regard  it  as  the  most  flagrant 
anachronism  to  pretend  to  find  anything  Montanistic  in  this  epistle.  In  the  manner  of  dis- 
tinguishing between  the  "pastors,"  -koljieveq  and  "  teachers,"  di6d<JKa?.oi,  we  .also  recognise 
something  which  belongs  only  to  this  age ;  (compare  the  distinction  between  diddanaXoi  and 
Kvj3tpvriaELg,  1  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  the  distinction  between  (hSdonsiv  and  izpoioTandai,  Rom.  xii.  7, 
8.)  But  Baur  thinks  that  he  has  discovered  in  the  whole  passage  an  idea  foreign  to  Paul,  of 
a  progressive  development  of  the  church,  the  representation  of  an  approaching  more  perfect 
age  of  ecclesiastical  development,  which  certainly  would  not  be  in  harmony  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  speedy  second  advent  of  Christ.  But  this  passage  contains  nothing  of 
the  kind ;  Paul  speaks  only  of  the  church  of  that  age  in  which  he  wrote  the  epistle,  and 
marks  its  development  from  its  childhood  (vrjinuTTir),  to  its  maturity  (te?.ei6i  *$),  a  perfectly 
Pauline  idea,  which  is  found  in  the  universally  acknowledged  genuine  Pauline  epistles. 
"We  are  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  any  one  could  think  of  finding  here  the  Montanist  idea 
of  successive  stages  iu  the  growth  of  the  church.  De  Wette  maintains  further,  that  the 
mention  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification  in  ch.  ii.  8-10,  is  hardly  in  accordance  with  the 
apostle's  doctrinal  theology.  But  this  I  cannot  perceive.  On  the  contrary,  I  recognize 
nothing  but  what  is  most  truly  Pauline.  Although  Paul  is  not  writing  to  those  in  whom 
he  would  presuppose  a  disposition  to  confide  in  the  merits  of  the  "  works  of  law,"  not  to 
those  who  were  formerly  Jews,  yet  he  had  reason  to  bring  forward  the  universal  and  to 
him  ever-present  truth,  that,  in  their  being  called  to  Christianity,  all  of  them,  without  dis- 
tinction, were  indebted  for  everything  to  grace  alone ;  the  few  who  had  hitherto  led  a  more 
moral  life,  as  well  as  the  majority  who  had  been  sunk  in  vice.  Compare  1  Cor.  i.  29,  30 
In  that  passage  he  was  obliged  thus  to  express  Limsell'on  account  of  the  contrast,  since  ha 


304  THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE   EPHESIANS. 

formation  and  connexion,  as  they  were  called  forth  by  his  opposition  to 
that  sect  whose  sentiments  and  practices  he  combats  in  that  epistle.* 

Though  this  epistle  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  manuscripts  now  ex- 
tant, as  addressed  to  the  church  at  Ephesus,  yet  the  general  character  of 
the  contents,  suited  to  the  wants  of  the  Asiatic  Christians  of  Gentile  de- 
scent, testifies,  by  the  absence  of  all  special  references  to  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Ephesian  church,  against  such  an  exclusive  or  predom- 
inant appropriation  of  it.  If  this  epistle  had  been  designed  principally 
for  the  Ephesian  church,  Paul  would  certainly  have  been  impelled  to  say 
to  those  among  whom  he  had  spent  so  long  a  time,  many  things  relating 
solely  to  their  peculiar  circumstances.  This  conclusion,  which  we  draw 
with  certainty  from  the  contents  of  the  epistle,  is  confirmed  by  the  infor- 
mation that  has  come  down  to  us  from  antiquity,  that  the  designation  of 

wished  to  lay  a  stress  upon  the  point.  The  new  creation,  previous  to  which  they  could 
accomplish  nothing  good,  and  to  which  they  owed  everything,  must  necessarily  manifest 
itself  through  genuiue  "good  works,"  epya  dyadd.  In  the  next  place,  De  Wette  notices 
the  arbitrary  application  in  Eph.  iv.  8  of  Ps.  Ixviii.  18.  It  is  indeed  a  free  application, 
but  yet  spirited  and  not  forced.  In  that  passage  Jehovah  is  represented  as  a  victorioua 
leader,  bringing  his  enemies  in  triumph  to  the  heights  of  Zion,  to  whom  his  con- 
quered foes  do  homage  by  the  presentation  of  gifts.  This  is  applied  to  the  manner  in 
which  Christ  ascended  to  heaven,  after  overcoming  the  powers  that  opposed  the  kingdom 
of  God.  But  in  accordance  with  his  object  the  apostle  represents  the  gifts  received  as 
imparted.  As  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  believers  is  an  evidence  of  the  vic- 
tory over  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  so  the  special  charisms  are  marked  as  the  gifts  ot 
victory  belonging  to  the  glorified  Christ.  Examples  of  such  a  free  use  of  Old  Testament 
passages  are  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  Paul's  writings ;  compare  Rom.  x.  6,  &c.  The  quo- 
tation in  ch.  v.  14,  is  certainly  a  problem  to  be  explained,  but  we  are  not  authorized  to 
employ  it  in  casting  suspicion  on  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle.  The  appeal  in  ch.  iii.  3, 
to  what  he  said  before,  is  certainly  somewhat  singular,  and  we  can  point  out  nothing 
similar  in  Paul.  But  the  singularity  is  softened  when  we  recollect  that  this  is  a  circular 
epistle  which  was  intended  for  several  churches  to  whom  Paul  was  personally  unknown, 
and  that  what  is  said  relates  to  the  great  novel  idea  of  the  one  church  of  God,  to  be  formed 
from  Jews  and  Gentiles  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  an  idea  which  was  first  set  by  Paul  in 
the  clearest  light.  The  passage  in  ch.  vi.  2,  3,  is  also  remarkable  ;  but  if  the  apostle,  ex- 
pressing the  precept  in  the  Old  Testament  form,  has  added  a  sign,  in  order  to  mark  the 
importance  which  from  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view  is  given  to  this  precept,  it  appears 
to  me  to  be  at  least  no  decisive  mark  against  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle.  In  ch.  iv.  28, 1 
can  find  nothing  so  very  strange  in  such  a  connexion:  "He  who  hitherto,  through  idle- 
ness, has  been  led  to  steal  from  others,  must  labor  as  a  Christian,  not  only  that  he  may 
honestly  gain  his  own  livelihood,  but  in  order  to  be  able  to  show  kindness  to  others.  Let 
him,  who  has  hitherto  seized  ou  the  property  of  others,  be  changed  into  one  who  even  main- 
tains others  in  need  by  the  produce  of  his  own  labor."  The  comparison  of  marriage  with 
the  relation  of  the  church  to  Christ,  ch.  v.  23,  appears  to  me,  though  not  occurring  else- 
where in  Paul's  writings,  as  perfectly  consonant  with  Christian  ideas,  and  by  no  means  un- 
Pauline.     Compare  1  Cor.  vi.  15. 

*  For  the  confirmation  of  this  relation  of  the  two  epistles  to  one  another,  the  "and,"' 
Kal,  in  Eph.  vi.  21,  certainly  serves,  which  can  only  be  explained  by  supposing  that  Paul  had 
in  his  thoughts  what  he  had  beon  writing  to  the  Colossians,  iv.  8,  according  to  the  correct 
reading,  "  that  he  might  know,"  Iva  yv&re.  Harless  has  noticed  this  mark  in  the  Introduc- 
tion to  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  p.  60,  and  after  him  Wiggers  jua 
in  the  Siudien  und  Kriliken;  1841,  2d  part,  p.  453. 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   EPHESIANS.  305 

the  place  in  the  introductory  salutation  is  wanting  in  ancient  manu 
scripts.  But  since  the  Ephesian  church  consisted  for  the  most  part  of 
Gentile  Christians,  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  epistle  was 
equally  designed  for  them,  though  being  a  circular  letter,  the  apostle 
touched  only  on  those  circumstances  and  wants  which  were  common  to 
them  with  the  other  churches  of  this  district.  It  might  also  be  thought, 
most  proper  that  the  epistle  should  be  sent  from  Ephesus,  as  the  metrop- 
olis and  the  seat  of  the  mother-church,  *to  the  other  churches.  This 
would  best  agree  with  the  designation  which  it  generally  obtained  at  an 
early  period,  as  specially  addressed  to  the  Ephesian  church.  Yet  from 
this  remark  we  do  not  venture  to  infer  too  much,  since  the  great  prepon- 
derance of  the  Ephesian  church,  as  one  of  the  sedes  apostolicce,  although 
the  epistle  at  first  might  have  had  no  precise  designation,  must  have  pro- 
cured a  predominant  value  to  its  name,  as  of  one  directed  to  the  Ephe- 
sian church.* 

In  the  second  period  of  his  confinement,  Paul  received  a  contribution 
from  the  church  at  Philippi  (which  had  already  given  practical  proof  of 
its  love  for  him)  through  Epaphroditus,  their  messenger,  from  whom 
also  he  received  an  account  of  their  state.  In  consequence  of  this 
information,  he  had  occasion  to  put  the  Christians  at  Philippi  on  their 
guard  against  the  influence  of  Judaizing  teachers,  to  exhort  them  to 
union  amongst  themselves,  and  to  recommend  to  those  who  had  more 
liberal  and  enlarged  views,  forbearance  towards  their  weaker  brethren. 
On  this  last  topic  he  gives  them,  in  the  words  of  the  exhortation  which 
he  added  after  the  epistle  was  already  closed,  the  important  rule,  that  all 
should  seek  to  employ  faithfully  the  measure  of  knowledge  which  they 
had  already  attained  (iii.  15),  that  then  God  would  reveal  to  them  what 
they  still  wanted,  and  thus  all  would  by  degrees  arrive  at  a  right  state 
of  Christian  maturity.f  He  exhorted  them,  under  the  persecutions  to 
which  the  Christians  in  Macedonia  were  still  exposed,  to  bear  joyfully 
their  sufferings  for  Christ's  sake,  and  to  view  them  as  a  gift  of  grace 
which  was  vouchsafed  to  them. 

Everything  in  this  epistle,  the  state  of  mind  with  which  the  writer 
contemplates  impending  death,  the  manner  in  which  he  judges  of  him- 
self, his  pathetic  exhortations  to  the  church,  all  bear  the  inimitable  im- 
press of  Paul.  A  later  writer  attempting  to  forge  a  letter  in  his  name, 
would  not  have  made  him  express  himself  with  that  apparent  uncertainty 
in  reference  to  his  future  lot,  iii.  11,'  12. J 

*  The  well-founded  reaction  against  the  subjective  arbitrariness  of  a  one-sided  negative 
criticism,  must  not  seduce  us  into  a  superstitious  overvaluation  of  tradition,  which  in  its 
turn  may  lead  to  mere  arbitrary  assertions,  instead  of  that  result  which  offers  itself  from 
the  comprehensive  survey  of  Christian  antiquity. 

f  The  gloss  of  the  common  reading  (icavovi,  rd  avrb  (ppovtiv),  which  injures  the  mean- 
ing, arose  from  mistaking  the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  supposing  that  it  referred  to  Chris- 
tian unity,  and  not  to  the  agreement  of  practice  with  knowledge. 

\  In  the  severe  language  against  the  Judaizing  proselyte-makers,  (Phil.  iii.  2,  3,)  I  cer- 
tainly cannot  with  Baur  find  anything  un-Pauline.  The  predicate  "  dogs,"  kvvec,  as  a 
19 


306  Paul's  second  epistle  to  timothy. 


CHAPTER  X. 

t 
Paul's  labors  after  his  release  from  hi:?  first  confinement  at 

rome,  to  his  martyrdom. 

Hitherto  we  have  possessed  certain  information  respecting  the  cir- 
cumstances and  labors  of  the  apostle  Paul  during  his  confinement  at 
Rome.  But  in  reference  to  the  sequel,  we  meet  on  all  sides  with  great 
obscurity  and  uncertainty.  The  question  arises,  whether  he  ended  this 
confinement  with  martyrdom,  or  whether  he  was  released  from  it,  and 
entered  afresh  on  his  apostolic  labors.  The  decision  of  this  question 
depends,  partly  on  the  depositions  of  historical  witnesses,  partly  on  the 
result  of  an  examination  of  Paul's  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  on  whether 
this  epistle,  which  was  evidently  written  during  a  confinement  at  Rome, 
must  be  classed  among  the  epistles  written  in  the  time  of  his  first  con- 
finement, or  whether  we  must  assume  the  existence  of  a  second.  The 
narratives  of  the  fourth  century,  according  to  which  Paul  was  set  at 
liberty  and  published  the  gospel  in  Spain,  cannot  be  taken  into  account, 
for  all  these  might  very  easily  arise  from  what  he  says  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  of  his  intentions  of  visiting  Spain.  But  more  attention  is 
due  to  an  account  which  is  given  by  a  man  who  was  in  part  a  contem- 
porary, and  probably  a  disciple  of  Paul.     Clement,  the  bishop  of  Rome, 

designation  of  shameless  men,  is  not  at  all  extraordinary.  It  perfectly  comports  with  the 
indignation  of  Paul  against  those  persons  who  would  mislead  Christians,  and  turn  them 
aside  from  seeking  salvation,  that  he  should  term  the  mere  outward  circumcision  a  nara- 
Tofifj,  as  in  Gal.  v.  12  ;  it  is,  also,  altogether  Pauline  when  Christians  are  termed  "  the  true 
circumcision  who  worship  God  in  the  spirit,"  Rom.  ii.  29.  It  is  also  by  no  means  far- 
fetched, but  very  naturally  connected,  when  Paul,  who  had  to  fight  far  and  near  with  these 
Judaizers,  is  induced  to  oppose  his  own  example  to  what  was  the  only  glory  of  these  per- 
sons, that  he  could  boast  of  all  those  distinctions  in  the  highest  degree,  but  counted  them 
all  as  nothing  in  order  to  seek  bis  righteousness  in  Christ  alone,  which  is  followed  by  that 
most  glorious  passage,  iii.  9-15,  which  breathes  entirely  the  spirit  of  Paul.  That  in  i.  1, 
the  deacons  immediately  succeed  the  bishops,  is  a  mark  which  testifies  against  a  some- 
what later  time,  in  which  bishops  and  presbyters  already  began  to  be  distinguished.  But 
the  name  of  Clement  (iv.  3.)  reminds  Dr.  Baur  at  once  of  his  hobby-horse,  the  Clementines, 
and  calls  up,  by  the  association  of  ideas,  Peter,  Simon  Magus,  the  Gnostics,  and  many 
others  whom  no  one  else  would  have  thought  of  meeting  in  this  epistle.  What  allusions 
indeed  may  not  be  found,  when  (ii.  4-'?)  one  is  led  to  think  of  the  Valentinian  Sophia, 
which  would  penetrate  into  the  essence  of  Bythos,  and  sink  down  into  Chaos,  and  when 
Christ  is  thought  to  form  a  contrast  to  it?  or  when  Schwegler  considers  Euodias  to  be  a 
symbol  of  the  Jewish-Christian  party,  and  Syntyche  a  symbol  of  the  Gentile  Christians, 
and  under  the  phrase  "  true  yoke-fellow,"  oiifryoc  yvrjotof,  (with  reference  to  the  Clement- 
ines) would  find  the  apostle  Peter  as  one  pointed  out  from  a  conciliatory  point  of  view  f 
See  das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  vol.  ii.  p.  135. 


PAULS    SECOND    EPISTLE    TO    TIMOTHY.  307 

says  expressly  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  (§  5,)*  that  Paul 
suffered  martyrdom,  after  he  had  travelled  to  the  boundaries  of  the 
West.f  By  this  expression,  we  most  naturally  understand  Spain ;  and 
though  Clement  might  have  understood  by  it  some  other  place  or 
country  than  exactly  this,  yet  we  cannot  in  any  case  suppose  that  a  person 
writing  at  Rome  should  have  understood  anything  else  by  it.J     From 

*  What  we  learn  from  the  only  natural  interpretation  of  this  passage  could  not  have 
occurred,  if  what  Schenkel  has  remarked,  in  his  Dissertation  against  a  second  confinement 
of  Paul  (in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1841,  part  1)  respecting  Clement's  Epistle,  be  cor- 
rect; namely,  that  it  was  written  only  a  few  years  after  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Corin- 
thians, between  the  years  64  and  65  ;  but  we  cannot  at  all  agree  with  this  opinion.  The 
inference  from  §  41,  where  the  author  expresses  himself  as  if  the  temple  and  temple- 
worship  at  Jerusalem  were  still  in  existence,  cannot  countervail  those  passages  of  this 
epistle  which  contain  the  most  undeniable  marks  of  a  later  period  ;  as  §  44,  on  the  election 
to  church-offices ;  §  47,  where  it  is  presupposed  that  Paul  wrote  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians  at  the  beginning  of  the  publication  (or  of  his  publication)  of  the  gospel  (iv 
(Ipxy  tov  evayyeXiov).  And  it  appears  that  the  author  knew  nothing  of  any  epistle  written 
to  the  Corinthians  by  Paul  before  our  first  epistle  to  them.  I  also  think  that  Clement 
would  have  expressed  himself  otherwise  in  §  5,  if  he  had  written  only  a  few  years  after 
Paul's  martyrdom.  The  allusions  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  also  indicate  a  much  later 
date.  The  manner  in  which  Schenkel  has  thought  that  the  Epistle  of  Clement  can  be 
brought  into  connection  with  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  I  must  regard  as  the  more 
unfortunate  the  less  I  am  able  to  recognise  in  it  an  epistle  that  proceeded  from  a  dofiuite 
reference  to  certain  immediately  visible  circumstances  of  a  particular  church. 

f  The  /uap-vpelv  in  this  connexion,  "  fxaorvpijaa^  eni  ruv  qyovfievuv,"  is  to  be  under- 
stood probably,  not  in  the  later  meaning  of  martyrdom,  but  in  the  original  sense  of  bearing 
testimony  to  the  faith,  although  with  a  reference  to  the  death  of  Paul  which  was  brought 
on  by  this  confession.  "  He  bore  testimony  of  his  faith  before  the  heathen  magistrates." 
.At  all  events,  the  words  inl  tuv  riyov/xivuv  must  be  understood  as  a  general  designation 
of  the  heathen  magistrates ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  Clement  intended  to  give  a  pre- 
cise chronological  mark,  or  to  refer  to  the  persons  to  whom  at  that  time  the  chief  manage- 
ment of  public  affairs  was  committed  in  Rome. 

\  Schrader,  indeed,  adopts  Ernesti's  opinion,  that  by  repfia  T?)g  6voeu<;  may  be  meant 
the  boundaries  of  the  west  towards  the  east,  and  thus  nothing  else  be  intended  than  that 
Paul  had  just  reached  as  far  as  the  boundaries  of  the  west.  But  though  we  are  willing 
to  allow  that  the  words  might  in  themselves  be  so  understood,  yet  it  is  impossible  so  to 
understand  them  in  this  connexion.  For  Clement  had  just  said  that  Paul  proclaimed  the 
gospel  in  the  East  and  in  the  West  {lujpv!;  yevo/ievof  iv  t?)  dvaroArj  Kal  iv  tt)  dvoei)  that  he 
had  taught  righteousness  to  the  whole  world  (Sucatoavvriv  6M^ac  blov  rbv  Koopov),  and 
then  follow  the  words  ent  to  reppa  r?/c  6vaeuQ  iW6v.  In  this  connexion,  Clement  must 
surely  have  intended  to  say  that  Paul  advanced  far  into  the  West.  It  may  here  be  re- 
marked, that  Clement  must  have  known  more  of  the  events  in  general  of  Paul's  life,  for  he 
says  that  Paul  wis  seven  times  put  in  fetters.  Even  after  what  has  been  said  since  the 
publication  of  this  work  against  this  interpretation  and  application  of  the  passage  in  Cle- 
ment, I  cannot  prevail  on  myself  to  give  it  up ;  and  I  am  pleased  to  find  critics  like  Cred- 
ner,  who  hold  the  same  views.  How  can  it  be  imagined  that  Clement,  if  he  thought  only 
of  Paul's  first  confinement  at  Rome,  could  say  that  he  had  published  the  gospel  not  merely 
in  the  East,  but  also  in  the  West,  and  had  come  even  to  the  boundaries  of  the  West  ? 
Even  if  we  allow  much  for  the  rhetorical  form  of  the  expression,  we  cannot  consider  this 
as  a  proper  designation  of  such  a  fact ;  and  why  should  a  writer  who  had  at  hand  so  many 
rhetorical  designations  for  the  metropolis  of  the  world,  have  chosen  precisely  this  the  most 
unnatural  ?     It  also  appears  to  me  a  torturing  of  the  word,  something    impossible,  that 


308  Paul's  second  epistle  to  timothy. 

this  account  of  Clement,  if  we  must  infer  that  Paul  carried  into  effect  his 
intention  of  travelling  into  Spain,  or  that,  at  least,  he  went  beyond  Italy, 
we  are  also  obliged  to  admit,  that  he  was  released  from  his  confinement 
at  Rome.  And  we  should  be  obliged  to  abide  by  this  opinion,  if  we  had 
no  further  information  of  the  circumstances  of  Paul  during  his  second 
confinement,  if  we  could  also  place  his  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  in  the 
time  of  his  first  imprisonment. 

If  we  depart  from  this  last  supposition,  we  can  put  two  cases  ;  either 
that  Paul  wrote  this  epistle  at  the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of  his  confine- 
ment. As  to  the  first  case,  we  know  that  Paul  came  to  Rome  without 
Timothy,  but  that  he  was  afterwards  in  his  society.  It  may  be  therefore 
supposed,  that  he  was  called  by  this  very  epistle  from  Lesser  Asia  to 
Rome,  and  that  from  that  time  he  remained  constantly  with  him.  But 
the  information  furnished  by  this  epistle,  of  Paul's  situation  at  that  time, 
is  entirely  opposed  to  such  a  supposition.  When  he  wrote  it,  he  had 
already  obtained  a  public  audience,  and  had  been  heard  in  his  defence. 
On  the  contrary,  in  the  first  period  of  his  confinement,  this  had  certainly 
not  happened,  since  it  is  first  mentioned  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 
He  then  had  his  martyrdom  in  prospect,  while  his  First  Epistle  during 
his  confinement  held  out  the  most  cheering  hopes  of  his  release. 

If  we  take  the  second  case,  and  consider  this  epistle  as  the  last  he  wrote 
in  that  confinement  at  Rome,  it  will  connect  itself  with  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  with  respect  to  the  darker  prospects  of  the  apostle's  situa- 
tion, of  which  it  contains  several  indications.  But  several  other  things 
do  not  agree  with  this  supposition,  and  rather  direct  us  to  another  date. 
And  although  not  every  particular  which  we  could  mention  on  this  point 
has  equal  weight,  yet  all  taken  together  are  in  favor  of  that  view, 
according  to  which  all  the  particulars  can  be  most  naturally  and  simply 
understood,  in  the  manner  which  would  first  occur  to  an  unprejudiced 
reader  of  the  epistle.  Paul  desires  Timothy  to  come  to  him,  without 
any  allusions  to  his  having  been  already  with  him  during  his  confinement. 
When  we  begin  to  read  the  epistle,  everything  gives  the  impression,  that 
he  had  taken  leave  of  Timothy  in  the  place  where  the  latter  was  now 
residing,  and  since  that  time  had  been  put  in  confinement.  He  cautions 
him  against  the  false  teachers  in  his  neighborhood  (in  Lesser  Asia,  pro- 
bably at  Ephesus),  ii.  17,  and  speaks  of  them  as  if  he  had  himself  the 
opportunity  of  knowing  them  well  from  personal  observation.  This  could 
not  have  been  during  his  earlier  residence  in  Lesser  Asia,  for  at  that  time 
these  heretical  tendencies  had  not  yet  shown  themselves,  as  appears  from 
what  we  have  before  remarked  ;  but  everything  is  easily  explained  if 
Paul,  being  released  from  confinement,  travelled  into  Lesser  Asia,  as  he 
intended,  and  entered  into  conflict  with  these  false  teachers,  who  had 

Clement  should  have  understood  the  word  subjectively,  from  the  position  of  Paul  at  the 
Jimit  of  his  labors  in  the  West,  beyond  which  he  was  hindered  from  extending  them  into 
the 


PAUL  S   SECOND   EPISTLE  TO   TIMOTHY.  30!> 

gained  a  footing  there  during  his  imprisonment.  He  informed  Timothy 
of  the  result  of  his  first  public  examination,  iv.  16,  and  in  a  manner  which 
implies  that  Timothy  knew  nothing  before  of  it,  and  that  it  had  taken 
place  during  his  absence  from  Rome.  But  when  Paul  made  his  defence 
during  his  first  confinement,  Timothy  was  with  him ;  (compare  Philip. 
i.  7.)  We  are  therefore  led  to  think  of  something  that  happened  during 
Paul's  second  confinement.  There  are,  besides,  many  marks  which  in- 
dicate that  he  had  come  to  the  West  by'his  usual  route  from  Lesser  Asia 
through  Achaia,  but  which  we  know  was  not  his  route  when  he  last 
same  from  Cassarea  to  Jerusalem.  He  charges  Timothy  to  bring  with 
him  the  cloak,  the  books,  and  especially  the  parchments,  which  he  had 
left  behind  at  the  house  of  a  person  whose  name  he  mentions  (2  Tim.  iv. 
13.)  Now  it  is  far  more  probable  that  he  left  these  things  behind  after 
a  visit  to  Troas  some  months  before,  than  at  a  distance  of  four  or  six 
years,  which  we  must  suppose  to  have  been  the  case  if  the  epistle  was 
written  during  his  first  confinement,  and  that  they  should  be  brought  to 
him  only  after  so  long  an  interval.*  In  order  to  depict  his  state  of  de- 
sertion, he  informs  Timothy  that  Erastus,  one  of  his  usual  companions, 
who  probably  was  with  him  the  last  time  in  Lesser  Asia,f  stayed  behind 
in  his  native  place,  Corinth ;  and  that  he  had  left  another  of  his  com- 
panions, Trophimus,  sick  at  Miletum,  2  Tim.  iv.  20.J     Although  we  find 

*  It  is  an  arbitrary  assumption  that  these  parchments  contained  documents  relative  to 
his  defence,  and  that  for  that  reason  he  now  wished  to  have  them. 

f  See  Acts  xix.  22.  This  could  hardly  be  the  same  as  the  "  chamberlain,"  olnovofioc, 
of  Corinth,  mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi.  23,  for  his  office  would  scarcely  allow  of  his  being  so 
often  with  Paul  on  his  missionary  journeys. 

\  On  the  supposition  that  the  epistle  might  have  been  written  during  Paul's  first  con- 
finement, it  is  the  most  natural  supposition  that  those  persons  are  here  spoken  of,  who  had 
resolved  to  come  to  Rome  (as  Timothy  knew),  to  the  apostle's  assistance  on  his  trial,  ac- 
cording to  the  usages  of  Roman  law.  One  of  them,  Erastus,  had  not  left  Corinth  as  he 
intended,  but  remained  there.  Trophimus  (who  as  a  witness  might  have  been  of  great 
service)  they  (the  delegates  of  the  churches  in  Lesser  Asia  who  had  agreed  to  travel  to- 
gether to  Rome)  had  left  on  the  way.  sick,  at  Miletum  (utteXlttov,  the  third  person  plural). 
But  certainly  the  other  interpretation,  in  which  nothing  needs  to  be  supplied,  is  the 
simplest,  and  that  which  would  first  occur  to  an  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  epistle.  Be- 
sides, if  Paul  had  reminded  Timothy  of  something  which  must  have  been  known  to  hira, 
in  order  to  stir  him  up  still  more  to  set  oft*  without  delay  to  Rome,  (as  Timothy,  who  was 
probably  staying  at  Ephesus,  must  have  known  that  the  delegates  from  the  churches  had 
left  Trophimus  sick  in  his  neighborhood,)  he  would  have  added  some  such  word  as  "  you 
know,"  olSac,  to  signify  that  he  was  merely  reminding  him  of  something  he  knew  already. 
We  may  also  doubt,  whether  the  testimony  of  Trophimus  was  of  so  much  consequence  to 
Paul.  The  charge  of  raising  a  tumult  at  Jerusalem  would  probably  not  be  so  dangerous 
to  him;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  most  probably  justified  sufficiently,  on  his  arrival  at  Rome, 
by  the  statements  that  were  sent  at  the  same  time  from  the  Roman  authorities,  whose  in- 
quiries had  thus  far  led  to  a  wholly  favorable  result.  But  the  charge  of  having  prompted 
Roman  citizens  to  apostatize  from  the  State  religion,  and  of  having  propagated  a  religio 
nova  et  illicita,  must  have  been  the  one  really  dangerous,  and  in  this  case  Trophimus  could 
be  of  no  assistance  to  him. 


310  PAULS   SECOND   EPISTLE   TO   TIMOTHY. 

several  persons  in  Paul's  society,  who  were  also  with  him  during  his  first 
confinement  (though  this  circumstance  will  not  serve  to  fix  the  date, 
since  the  same  causes  as  at  that  time  might  bring  them  again  into  his 
society)  ;  yet  among  these  is  a  Titus,  who  was  not  with  him  before,  for 
we  have  not  met  with  them  together  since  the  apostle's  last  sojourn  in 
Macedonia  and  Achaia,  and  a  Crescens,  who  is  not  named  before  as  one 
of  his  companions. 

Against  the  opinion  that  this  epistle,  in  consequence  of  the  marks  we 
have  indicated,  was  written  in  Paul's  second  confinement,  it  may  indeed 
be  objected,  that  we  find  in  it  no  reference  at  all  to  an  earlier  confinement 
at  Rome.  But  this  will  appear  less  strange,  if  we  attend  to  the  follow- 
ing considerations.  By  this  epistle,  the  apostle  by  no  means  intended  to 
give  the  first  information  to  Timothy  of  his  new  confinement ;  he  rather 
assumes,  that  this,  and  in  part  the  peculiarities  of  his  condition  in  it, 
were  already  known  to  him,  as  appears  from  i.  15,*  and  by  means  of 
the  constant  intercourse  between  the  chief  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  the  lively  interest  taken  by  the  churches  in  Paul's  affairs,  information 
respecting  him  must  soon  have  reached  Ephesus.  Moreover,  during  this 
period  after  his  release,  so  many  things  occurred  in  his  renewed  apostolic 
labors,  which  fully  occupied  the  mind  of  one  who  was  more  affected  by 
events  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  God  than  by  any  personal  considera- 
tions, and  thus  necessarily  pushed  into  the  background  the  recollection  of 
his  former  confinement,  that  in  the  prospect  of  martyrdom,  he  would 
fix  his  thoughts  more  on  the  future  than  on  the  past,  especially  in  the 
presence  of  events  that  were  likely  to  affect  the  progress  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  on  earth. 

Now  if  we  admit  that  Paul  was  released  from  that  confinement,  we 
must  assume  that  he  regained  his  freedom  before  the  persecution  against 
the  Christians  occasioned  by  the  conflagration  at  Rome  in  the  year  64  ; 
for  had  he  been  a  prisoner  at  this  time,  he  certainly  would  not  have  been 
spared.  And  it  agrees  with  the  chronological  data  which  we  have 
before  discovered,  that  after  more  than  a  two  years'  imprisonment,  he 
regained  his  freedom  between  the  years  62  and  63,  a  result  of  the  pro- 
ceedings against  him  which  in  itself,  and  in  connexion  with  existing  cir- 
cumstances, is  by  no  means  improbable.  The  accusation  of  raising  a 
tumult  at  Jerusalem  had  been  proved  to  be  unfounded ;  but  the  opposi- 
tion of  Christianity  to  the  State  religion  had  not  then  attracted  public 
attention,  and  though  this  fact  could  not  have  passed  altogether  un- 
noticed, yet  no  definite  law  existed  on  the  subject,  and  under  the 
Emperor  Nero,  who  ridiculed  the  established  religion,  and  gave  himself 
little  concern  about  the  ancient  Roman  enactments,  such  a  point  might 

*  This  passage  may  be  most  naturally  understood  of  a  number  of  Christians  from  Lesser 
Asia,  who,  on  coming  to  Rome,  were  afraid  to  visit  Paul  in  his  confinement,  and  had 
already  returned  home  when  he  wrote  this  epistle.  Paul  makes  them  known  to  Timothy 
by  specifying  two  of  their  number. 


PAUL'S    RELEASE.  311 

more  easily  have  been  waived.  The  friends  whom  Paul  had  gained  by 
his  behavior  during  his  confinement,  and  by  the  manner  of  conducting 
his  defence,  would  probably  exert  their  influence  in  his  favor.  Thus  it 
might  be  explained  that  he  regained  his  freedom  ;  and  the  ancient  tradi- 
tion that  he  was  beheaded,*  and  not  crucified  like  Peter,  if  true,  favors 
his  not  having  suffered  death  in  the  persecution  of  64  ;  for  had  he 
been  put  to  death  in  that  persecution,  so  much  regard  would  not  have 
been  paid  to  his  Roman  citizenship  as  to  spare  the  hated  leader  of  a  de- 
tested sect  from  the  more  painful  and  ignominious  mode  of  execution. 

From  the  epistles  written  by  Paul  during  his  first  confinement,  we 
learn  that  he  labored  much  at  Rome  in  publishing  the  gospel ;  his  firm 
advocacy  of  the  cause  of  God,  and  his  happy  release,  must  have  had  a 
beneficial  influence  in  this  respect.  Hence  it  came  to  pass,  that  Chris- 
tianity from  this  time  spread  with  still  greater  power  among  the  Gentiles 
in  Rome.  But  by  this  very  means  the  new  sect,  while  gaining  ground 
among  the  heathen  to  the  injury  of  idolatry,  drew  on  itself  the  attention 
of  the  fanatical  people  who  could  not  feel  otherwise  than  hostile  to  the 
enemies  of  their  gods  ;  and  the  hatred  thus  excited  soon  occasioned  the 
report  to  be  spread  of  unnatural  crimes  committed  in  the  assemblies  of 
these  impious  persons.  Perhaps  also  the  Jews,  who  were  more  embit- 
tered against  the  Christians  when  their  designs  against  Paul  proved  abor- 
tive, contributed  their  part  to  excite  the  popular  hatred  against  them. 
But  a  persecution  on  the  part  of  the  state  would  hardly  have  been  threat- 
ened so  soon,  if  the  Emperor  Nero  had  not  availed  himself  of  the  popular 
feeling,  which  easily  credited  everything  bad  of  the  Christians,  in  order  to 
cast  an  odium  on  the  Christians  which  he  wished  to  throw  off  from  him- 
self.f  Yet  it  by  no  means  appears  that  this  outbreak  against  the  Chris- 
tians in  Rome  was  followed  by  a  general  persecution  against  them  through- 
out the  provinces,  and  hence  Paul  might  meanwhile  continue  his  apostolic 
labors  without  molestation  in  distant  parts. 

As  for  the  history  of  his  labors  in  this  new  field,  we  have  no  information 
respecting  it ;  nor  can  the  total  want  of  sources  for  this  part  of  church  his- 
tory be  at  all  surprising.  But  this  defect  of  information  cannot  be  made 
use  of  to  render  doubtful  the  fact  of  Paul's  second  confinement.  Nothing, 
therefore,  is  left  for  us,  but  to  compare  the  short  account  (already  men- 
tioned) in  the  Epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  with  what  Paul  himself  tells 
us  respecting  his  intentions  in  case  he  regained  his  freedom,  in  the  epistles 
written  during  his  first  confinement,  and  with  what  may  be  gathered  from 
his  other  letters,  which  it  seems  probable  that  he  wrote  after  his  release. 
Before  his  confinement,  Paul  had  expressed  the  intention  of  going  into 
Spain,  and  the  testimony  of  the  Roman  Clement  favors  the  belief  that  he 
fulfilled  this  intention.  But  during  his  confinement  at  Rome  he  had 
altered  his  views,  and  was  determined,  by  reasons  which  we  have  already 
noticed,  to  visit  once  more  the  scene  of  his  early  labors  in  Lesser  Asia 

*  See  Eusebius,  ii.  25. 

f  On  this  persecution  in  Rome,  soe  my  Church  History,  vol.  L  p.  94. 


312  Paul's  labors  after  his  release. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy  contains  hints  of  his  returning  by  his 
usual  route  through  Achaia.  But  it  would  be  possible  that  after  his  release 
he  travelled  first  into  Spain  ;*  that  he  there  exerted  himself  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  Christian  churches,  and  then  revisited  the  former  sphere  of 
his  ministry ;  that  he  was  on  his  return  to  the  West,  in  order  to  close 
there  his  apostolic  commission,  but  that  in  passing  through  Rome,  before 
he  could  resume  his  journey  he  was  arrested  and  imprisoned. — However, 
the  want  of  any  memorial  of  his  labors  in  Spain,  the  want  of  any  record 
of  an  ecclesia  apostolica,  does  not  favor  the  supposition  that  Paul  spent 
any  length  of  time  in  that  country  ;  and  hence  the  other  explanation, 
that  he  first  renewed  his  labors  in  the  East,  then  betook  himself  to 
Spain,  and  soon  after  his  arrival  was  arrested,  seems  to  deserve  the 
preference. 

We,  therefore,  are  of  opinion  that  Paul  first  fulfilled  his  intention  of 
returning  to  Lesser  Asia.  Now  the  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Timothy 
and  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  by  the  peculiarities  of  their  mode  of  expression, 
and  the  peculiar  references  to  ecclesiastical  relations,  connect  themselves 
so  closely  with  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  exhibit  so  many  marks 
of  the  later  apostolic  age  (one  of  which  we  have  already  noticed),  that 
it  appears  admissible  to  assign  both  these  epistles  to  this  period. 

In  the  earlier  history  of  the  apostle,  we  can  find  no  point  of  time  in 
which  he  could  have  written  such  a  letter  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus, 
in    reference    to   the  concerns  of  that   church,    as   his   first   epistle  ;f 

*  Mynster,  with  whom  I  am  glad  that  I  can  agree  in  many  other  particulars  in  my 
view  of  this  part  of  the  apostolic  history,  supposes  this  in  his  discussion  de  ultimis  annis 
rnuneris  apostolici  a  Paulo  gesti,  in  his  kleine  theologischen  Schriften,  p.  234. 

f  The  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  being  presupposed,  the  view  I  have 
here  taken  of  the  relations  and  circumstances  under  which  it  was  written,  appears  to  be 
the  only  tenable  one.  But  I  confess  that  I  am  not  convinced  of  the  geuuineness  of  the 
First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  with  the  same  certainty  as  of  the  Pauline  origin  of  other  Pau- 
line Epistles,  and  even  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Philippians,  the  Colossians,  and 
Philemon.  What  is  said  iu  this  epistle  of  the  false  teachers  excites  no  suspicion  in  my 
mind ;  and  I  can  find  nowhere  the  allusions  to  the  later  gnostic  doctrines,  which  Baur 
would  find  in  this  as  well  as  in  the  other  Pastoral  Letters.  The  germ  of  such  Judaizing 
Gnosticism,  or  of  a  Judaizing  theosophic  ascetic  tendency,  as  it  shows  itself  in  the  two 
Epistles  to  Timothy,  I  would  presuppose  a  priori  to  be  existing  at  this  timo,  since  the  ap- 
pearances of  the  second  century  point  back  to  such  a  tendency  gradually  evolving  itself 
out  of  Judaism.  In  this  respect,  the  absence  of  the  marks  of  a  later  date  in  the  contro- 
versial part  of  this  epistle,  is  to  me  a  proof  of  its  high  antiquity.  To  the  declaration  of 
Hegesippus,  in  Eusebius,  iii.  32,  that  the  falsifications  of  doctrine  first  began  after  the 
ieath  of  the  apostle,  or  rather  then  ventured  to  make  their  public  appearance,  I  can  attach 
no  such  weight  as  historical  evidence,  as  to  cast  a  doubt  on  these  undeniable  facts.  As 
there  is  an  unhistorical  tendency  produced  by  a  dogmatic  bias,  which  transposes  the 
originators  of  all  heresies  to  the  apostolic  age,  and  makes  the  apostles  to  be  the  first  im- 
pugners  of  them  ;  so  also  there  is  a  more  unhistorical  tendency,  and  equally  proceeding 
from  a  dogmatic  bias  (as, is  the  case  with  all  the  depositions  of  Hegesippus),  which  would 
maintain  that,  up  to  a  certain  date,  the  church  was  wholly  pure,  and  that  all  heresies 
broke  out  first  after  the  decease  of  the  apostles.  A  common  but  one-sided  truth  lies  at 
the  bottom  of  both  opinions.     I  can  find  nothing  surprising  in  the  fact,  that,  in  the  two 


Paul's  first  epistle  to  timothy.  31  a 

for  this  epistle  presupposes  a  church  already  for  some  time  in  exist- 
ence, in  which  such  disorders  had  arisen  as  in  many  respects  required 
a  new  organization  of  church  relations,  the  displacing  several  of  the 
leading  officers  of  the  church,  and  the  appointment  of  others.  The 
new  class  of  false  teachers  who  had  sprung  up  in  Lesser  Asia  during 
Paul's  imprisonment,  had  acquired  great  influence  in  the  Ephesian 
church.  As  Paul  (according  to  an  interpretation,  not  perhaps  neces- 
sary of  his  farewell  address  at  Miletus)  had  anticipated,  several  over- 
seers of  the  churches  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  seduced  by  the 
spirit  of  false  doctrine.  The  false  teachers  to  whom  we  refer,  bore  the 
same  marks  which  we  find  in  those  who  appeared  in  the  church  at 
Colossae  during  Paul's  confinement.  They  belonged  to  the  class  of 
Judaizers,  who  maintained  the  perpetual  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law.* 
But  they  distinguished  themselves  from  the  common  Judaizers  by  a 
theosophic  ascetic  tendency.  They  taught  abstinence  from  certain 
kinds  of  food,  and  prescribed  celibacy  as  essential  to  Christian  perfec- 
tion.! But  they  united  with  this  practical  tendency  a  theoretical  pecu- 
liarity. They  prided  themselves  on  possessing  a  higher  "  knowledge," 
yvojoig,  (the  (piXoacpia  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians),  and  by  this  they 
were  seduced  from  the  simplicity  of  the  faith.  They  taught  legendary 
tales  respecting  the  origin  and  propagation  of  spirits,  like  the  false 
teachers  at  Colossse.J     They  brought  forward  subjects  which  gave  rise 

Epistles  to  Timothy,  such  an  aspect  of  the  present  as  an  omon  and  germ  of  what  would 
be  developed  in  the  future,  is  to  be  seen.  The  attentive  observer,  capable  of  deeper  in- 
sight, must  here  behold  the  future  in  the  present.  B.ut  I  cannot  deny  that,  when  I  come 
from  reading  other  Pauline  epistles,  and  especially  the  two  other  Pastoral  Letters,  to  this 
epistle,  I  feel  myself  struck  by  the  impression  of  something  not  Pauline.  More  particularly, 
the  mode  of  transition, appears  to  me  not  in  the  Pauline  style, — as  inn.  7  ;  iii.,  1,  15 ;  v.  17, 
18;  and  the  relation  of  this  epistle  to  the  two  other  Pastoral  Letters  is  also  suspicious.'  I 
can  indeed  find  reasons  for  allaying  these  doubts,  but  none  which,  taken  altogether,  can 
satisfy  the  unprejudiced  lover  of  truth.  As  to  the  two  other  Pastoral  Letters,  I  will  not 
deny  that  along  with  the  impression  of  the  genuine  Pauline,  and  of  what  is  against  their 
composition  at  a  later  period,  some  things  are  to  be  found  which  might  excite  a  doubt 
even  in  the  mind  of  a  critic  not  ill-disposed,,  but  which  will  lead  us  to  consider  the  very 
peculiar  relation  by  which  these  epistles  are  distinguished  from  all  the  rest  of  Paul's. 

*  As  appears  from  the  Pauline  antithesis,  1  Tim.  i.  9. 

f  Among  the  "  bodily  exercises,"  aufiariKjj  yv/xvaala,  1  Tim.  iv.  8,  must  without  doubt 
be  included  a  piety  that  consisted  in  outward  gestures,  abstinencies,  and  ceremonies,  the 
opposite  of  which  is  true  piety  (evoefleid)  having  its  seat  in  the  disposition. 

\  The  genealogical  investigations  common  among  the  Jews,  by  which  Aiey  sought  to 
trace  their  descent  from  persons  of  note  in  former  times  up  to  the  Patriarchs,  cannot 
certainly  be  intended  in  1  Tim.  i.  4,  for  inquiries  of  this  sort  could  never  be  introduced 
among  Gentiles,  nor  could  their  minds  be  so  much  occupied  with  them,  that  the  addi- 
tional marks  given  in  the  epistle  would  be  applicable  to  them.  Nor  can  we  suppose  a 
reference  to  inquiries  respecting  the  genealogy  of  Jesus ;  what  has  just  been  said  would 
in  part  apply  to  this  supposition,  and  in  this  case  Paul  would  have  marked  his  meaning 
more  precisely,  and  according  to  his  usual  antithetical  style,  contrasted  the  Christ  accord- 
ing to  the  Spirit,  Xpiordf  ko,tu  nvevfia,  with  the  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  Xpioroc 
Kara  oupna.     On  the  contrary,  it  will  be  quite  suitable  to  apply  it  to  the  genealogy  of 


314  Paul's  first  epistle  to  timothy. 

to  subtle  disputations,  instead  of  leading  men  to  accept  in  faith  the 
divine  means  of  their  salvation  ;  1  Tim.  i.  4.  The  conflict  with  this  false 
Gnosis  now  springing  up,  must  have  occupied  the  churches  in  these 
parts.  As  the  prophets  in  the  assemblies  of  believers  frequently  warned 
them  of  the  dangers,  which  from  the  "signs  of  the  times  they  perceived 
were  threatening  the  church  ;  so  these  warning  voices  spoke  also  of  the 
conflict  that  awaited  the  church  with  this  hostile  tendency,  which  in 
following  centuries  was  one  of  the  severest  which  the  simple  gospel  had 
to  encounter.  These  are  the  express  warnings  of  the  Divine  Spirit  by 
the  inspired  addresses  in  the  churches,  to  which  Paul  appeals.*  To  this 
peculiar  state  of  the  church  several  of  those  directions  are  applicable, 
which  Paul  gives  in  this  epistle,  relative  to  the  appointment  of  their 
overseers. f 

Paul,  therefore,  executed  his  intention  of  going  into  Lesser  Asia,  and 
found  such  disturbances  in  the  churches  there,  arising  from  the  influence 
of  the.  unevangelical  tendency  we  have  noticed,  that  he  held  it  to  be  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  remain  longer  in  those  parts.  He  left  Ephesus,  for 
reasons  unknown  to  us,  to  visit  the  churches  of  Macedonia,  but  soon  re- 
turned thither,  and  in  the  meanwhile  left  Timothy  behind  for  the  special 
purpose  of  counterworking  these  false  teachers,  which  he  considered  an 
object  of  the  first  importance ;  to  this  he  added  a  subordinate  object,  the 
new  organization  of  the  church  at  Ephesus,  and  perhaps  also  the  super- 
intendence of  some  others  in  the  neighborhood,  which  had  since  been 
formed.  J 

:ho  angels,  yevea'koyiac  tuv  dyyeTiuv,  similar  to  the  later  gnostic  pneumatologies ;  on 
the  supposition,  indeed,  that  he  wrote  of  them  as  already  well  known  to  Timothy.  Any 
other  person  who  had  forged  this  epistle,  partly  for  the  purpose  of  employing  the  author- 
ity of  Paul  against  the  rising  gnosis,  would  have  more  exactly  marked  the  object  of  con- 
troversy. 

*  1  Tim.  iv.  1.  A  similar  expression  respecting  prophetic  intimations  occurs  in  Acta 
xx.  23. 

f  The  different  manner  in  which  Paul  expresses  himself  on  marriage  in  1  Tim.  ii.  15, 
and  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (see  pp.  235,  246),  could  also  be  used  as  a 
mark  of  the  not-Pauline  origin  of  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy.  But  yet  we  should  not 
rate  this  so  high  without  the  addition  of  other  reasons.  For  as  we  must  distinguish  two 
elements  in  Paul's  judgment  respecting  marriage,  the  new  Christian  idea  of  it,  and  his 
inclination  to  unmarried  life  founded  in  his  peculiar  life's  task  and  in  his  view  of  the 
impending  future,  so  could  one  or  the  other  of  these  predominate  in  him  in  different 
relations  or  at  different  times.  When,  in  opposition  to  those  who  prescribed  the  uncon- 
ditioned necessity  of  marriage  he  ascribed  a  certain  value  to  unmarried  life,  so  must  he 
have  had  occasion,  through  an  uncnristian  condemnation  or  degradation  of  marriage,  to 
give  prominence  to  the  other  side.  In  opposition  to  those  persons,  who  led  females  to 
forget  altogether  the  proper  destiny  of  their  sex,  and  to  thrust  themselves  forward  as 
public  teachers,  Paul  says,  1  Tim.  ii.  15,  that  the  woman  would  certainly  be  saved  in 
family  life  (the  Sid  is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of — by  means  of,  in — as  it  is  often 
used  by  Paul),  if  she  lead  a  holy  lile  in  faith  and  love  (or  dta  may  be  understood  as 
serving  to  connect  with  the  whole  remaining  part  of  the  sentence,  and  the  "  childbear- 
ing,"  TEnvoyovia,  as  referring  to  the  education  of  children  for  the  kingdom  of  God.) 

\  That  Paul  does  not  mention  in  this  epistle  his  deliverance  from  confinement  at  Rome, 


PAUL   IN  CRETE.  31,5 

If  we  regard  the  geographical  position  of  the  places,  it  agrees  very 
well  with  Paul's  residence  in  Lesser  Asia,  and  his  travelling  thence  to 
Macedonia,  that  at  this  time  he  visited  the  Island  of  Crete,  and  there 
left  his  disciple  Titus,  to  whom  he  addressed  an  epistle.  It  is  indeed 
easy  to  imagine,  that,  as  Paul  had  often  sojourned  for  a  longer  time  in 
those  parts,  he  had  already  founded  several  churches  in  Crete.  But  be- 
sides that,  for  reasons  before  mentioned,  we  are  led  to  fix  the  date  of  this 
epistle  nearer  that  of  the  two  other  Pastoral' Letters,  it  is  also  striking 
that,  while  Luke  in  the  Acts  reports  so  fully  and  circumstantially  the 
occurrences  of  the  apostle's  last  voyage  to  Rome,  and  mentions  his  stay 
at  Crete,  he  says  not  a  word  (contrary  to  his  usual  practice  in  such  cases) 
of  the  friendly  reception  given  to  him  by  the  Christians  there,  or  even  of 
his  meeting  with  them  at  all.  Hence  we  may  conclude  that  no  Christian 
churches  yet  existed  in  the  island,  though  that  transient  visit  would 
naturally  give  rise  to  the  intention  of  planting  the  gospel  there  ;  which 
he  probably  fulfilled  soon  after  he  was  set  at  liberty,  when  he  came  into 
those  parts.  As  in  the  last  period  before  his  journey  to  Jerusalem  we 
do  not  find  Titus  in  his  company,  and  on  the  other  hand  we  find,  in  the 
Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  that  he  was  with  the  apostle,  this  agrees 
very  well  with  the  supposition  that  Paul  after  his  release  once  more 
met  with  him  in  Lesser  Asia,  and  again  took  him  as  his  associate  in 
preaching  the  gospel. 

After  Paul  had  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Christian  church  in  Crete, 
he  left  Titus  behind  to  complete  the  organization  of  the  churches,  to  con- 
firm the  new  converts  in  purity  of  doctrine,  and  to  counteract  the 
influence  of  the  false  teachers.  If  we  compare  the  marks  of  the  false 
teachers  in  the  two  other  Pastoral  Epistles  with  those  in  the  Epistle  to 
Titus,  we  shall  find  a  similarity.  But  if  we  are  not  sustained  in  this,  (as 
we  are  not  authorized  to  suppose  the  same  appearances  of  the  religious 
spirit  in  Crete  and  in  Ephesus,*)  neither  shall  we  be  led  by  what  can  be 

proves  nothing  against  this  statement,  for  a  number  of  events  had  intervened  to  occupy  hia 
mind,  especially  when  he  wrote  this  epistle.  Tt  is  indeed  surprising  that  he  should  charge 
Timothy  to  "  let  no  man  despise  his  youth,"  since  Timothy  could  be  no  longer  a  youth. 
But  we  must  recollect  how  indefinitely  such  terms  are  often  used,  and  that  Paul,  when  he 
wrote  this,  might  have  special  reasons  for  such  an  injunction ;  among  the  leaders  of  the 
unevangelical  party,  there  might  be  persons  whose  great  age  had  secured  for  them  defer- 
ence and  respect.  The  passages  in  Titus  ii.  15,  and  also  2  Tim.  ii.  22,  (which  in  that  con- 
nexion has  nothing  strange,)  present  no  fit  parallel ;  and  if  in  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
traces  can  be  found  of  an  imitation  of  the  two  others,  these  words  may  certainly  be  regarded 
as  additional  traces,  and  may  proceed  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the  second  passage. 

*  I  cannot,  with  De  Wette,  consider  it  so  extraordinary  that  so  much  is  said  respecting 
false  doctrines  in  the  new  churches,  nor  that  Paul  deemed  it  necessary  to  direct  the  atten- 
tion of  Titus  to  the  fact,  who,  from  long  observation,  must  have  been  well  aware  of  the 
danger.  The  fermenting  process  in  the  development  of  Christianity  at  that  time,  might 
easily  extend  its  influence  from  one  district  to  another,  as  soon  as  Christianity  had  found 
its  entrance  into  men's  grinds,  and  hence,  from  the  first,  Christianity  was  threatened  by 
dangerous  disturbing  forces.  Along  with  the  seeds  of  Christianity,  these  foreign  elements 
might  spread  from  Asia  Minor,  or  Achaia,  to  Crete.     For  a  considerable  time  the  seeda  <*f 


316  PAULS   EPISTLE   TO   TITUS. 

inferred  simply  from  the  epistle  itself,  to  imagine  any  other  object  of 
Paul's  opposition  and  warning  than  the  common  Judaizing  tendency, 
and  a  blind,  spiritless,  pharisaic  knowledge  of  the  Scriptnres,  disputa 
tious,  cleaving  to  the  letter,  and  losing  itself  in  useless  hair-splittings  and 
rabbinical  fables.*  Paul  required  of  Titus  to  turn  the  attention  of  men 
to  objects  altogether  different  and  of  practical  advantage,  deeply  to  im- 
press on  their  minds  the  doctrine  which  formed  the  basis  of  salvation, 
and  to  lead  them  to  apply  this  fundamental  truth  to  real  life,  and  to  be 
zealous  to  verify  their  faith  by  good  works.f 

Christianity  might  have  been  scattered  before  there  had  been  the  means  of  organizing  a 
church.  Paul  felt  himself  compelled  to  warn  Titus  of  the  danger,  of  which  he  had  gained 
information  in  Crete  itself,  and  from  other  quarters.  The  defects  hi  the  character  of  the 
people  appeared  to  him  to  render  great  circumspection  necessary ;  these  defects  are  noticed 
by  Polybius,  (vi.  46,  §  3  :)  YLadolov  d'  6  ivepl  rfjv  alaxpoKepdeiav  koI  n?^eove^iav  rponog 
ovrur  eTrixupid£ei  nap'  avrolg,  wore  rrapd  /uovoig  KpyTaievoi  tuv  dnuvruv  dvOpurcuv  ftrfdlv 
alaxpov  vofiifrodai  nepdog.  (Covetousness  and  greediness  are  so  universal  and  customary 
among  the  Cretans,  that  among  them,  of  all  men,  no  scheme  of  gain  is  esteemed  base); 
and  §  5,  Ovre  /car'  [Slav  ?/6tj  6o7ud>Tepa  KprjTaieuv  evpoi  rig  uv.  (Neither  can  any  one 
find  individual  dispositions  more  deceitful  than  those  of  the  Cretans.)  Paul  probably  had 
these  national  vices  in  his  mind  when  he  laid  down  the  qualifications  that  were  necessary 
for  the  office  of  presbyter. 

*  As  to  the  genealogies  in  Titus  iii.  9,  if  we  compare  this  passage  with  the  "endless 
genealogies"  in  1  Tim.  i.  4,  we  shall  be  led  to  understand  a  reference  to  a  theosophic 
element,  an  emanation  doctrine ;  yet  this  expression  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  without  any- 
thing more  definite,  and  simply  in  its  own  connection,  favors  no  such  supposition ;  but  we 
shall  be  induced  to  think  of  the  common  Jewish  genealogies,  although  we  cannot  deter- 
mine precisely  for  what  object  these  would  be  employed,  and  the  comparison  of  1  Tim.  i. 
4  with  Titus  iii.  9,  might  excite  a  suspicion  of  a  misunderstood  copying  by  the  former. 

\  All  that  is  said  in  opposition  to  this  tendency  bears  the  impress  of  being  truly  apos- 
tolic and  Pauline.  If  the  passage  in  Titus  iii.  10  were  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  the 
later  unchristian  hatred  of  heretics,  the  passage  in  iii.  2  would  be  in  direct  contradiction 
to  it,  for  in  this  an  exactly  opposite  disposition  is  expressed ;  Christians  are  here  warned 
of  spiritual  pride,  which  might  mislead  them  to  exalt  themselves  as  believers  and  children 
of  God  agaiust  the  heathen,  to  treat  them  as  enemies,  to  insult  them  on  account  of  their 
superstition  and  the  vices  prevalent  amongst  them.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  their  duty  to 
cherish  gentleness  and  kindness  towards  them,  from  the  consciousness  that  they,  like  the 
heathen,  were  once  the  slaves  of  delusion  and  of  sin,  and  owed  their  deliverance  from  this 
state,  not  to  their  own  merits,  but  to  divine  grace  alone,  Titus  iii.  2.  f.  But  the  sentiment 
here  expressed,  if  rightly  understood,  by  no  means  contradicts  the  injunction  which  Paul 
gives  to  Titus  in  iii.  10.  In  this  latter  passage,  by  those  who  bring  in  "heresies," 
alpsacic  (Gal.  v.  20),  a  class  of  persons  are  referred  to  different  from  those  in  the  former, 
6uch  at  least  as  went  to  greater  lengths,  separated  from  Christian  fellowship  on  account 
of  their  peculiar  opinions,  and  founded  open  schisms.  Now  Paul  advised  Titus  to  enter 
into  no  disputations  with  persons  who  wished  to  make  these  schisms,  respecting  the  pecu- 
liarities to  which  they  attached  so  much  importance  ;  but  if  they  were  not  disposed  to  lis- 
ten to  repeated  admonitions,  to  avoid  all  further  intercourse  with  them,  since  such  dispu- 
tations could  be  of  no  advantage,  and  tended  only  to  injure  the  hearers,  and  throw  their 
minds  into  a  state  of  perplexity.  Such  persons,  whose  errors  were  interwoven  with  their 
whole  character,  were  not  to  be  convinced  by  argument.  And  as  he  reprobated  their 
whole  mental  tendency  in  reference  to  religion  as  unpractical,  it  followed,  of  course,  that 
he  admonished  his  disciples  not  to  engage  with  his  adversaries  on  this  position,  but  if  they 
would  not  listen  to  repeated  exhortations  to  return  to  evangelical  simplicity,  they  should 


Paul's  epistle  to  to  us.  311 

"When  Paul  wrote  this  letter  to  Titus  he  had  the  prospect  of  spend- 
ing the  winter  at  Nicopolis,  where  he  wished  Titus  to  join  him.  As 
there  were  so  many  cities  in  different  parts,  which,  having  been  built  on 
the  occasion  of  some  victory,  were  called  Nicopolis,  and  we  have  no 
exact  information  respecting  the  travels  of  the  apostle  in  this  last  period 
of  his  ministry,  and  the  exact  dates  are  wanting,  we  cannot  determine 
what  city  is  here  intended,  whether  we  are  to  look  for  it  in  Cilicia,  Mace- 
donia, Thrace,  or  Epirus.  We  might  suppose  that  the  city  built  in  the 
last-named  country  by  Augustus  to  commemorate  the  sea-fight  at  Actium 
was  intended  ;  but  at  all  events,  it  appears  from  the  plan  of  his  journey 
indicated  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  that  Paul  was  come  from 
Lesser  Asia  into  the  West,  and  that  he  had  probably  taken  final  leave  of 
his  beloved  Timothy  at  Ephesus. 

As  soon  as  he  had  returned  to  the  West,  he  fulfilled  his  purpose  of 
publishing  the  gospel  in  Spain.  But  there  he  was  soon  seized  and  sent 
as  a  prisoner  to  Rome.*  After  he  had  been  in  confinement  a  long  time, 
and  had  been  subjected  to  one  judicial  examination,  he  wrote-  his  last 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  whom  (as  we  have  just  said)  he  probably  had  left 
behind  at  Ephesus.  His  situation  at  this  time  was  evidently  very  differ- 
ent from  that  in  which  he  found  himself  during  his  first  confinement  after 
his  examination.  It  was  then  universally  allowed  that  he  was  a  prisoner, 
not  on  account  of  any  moral  or  political  offence,  but  only  for  publishing 
the  gospel,  and  his  example  gave  many  courage  boldly  to  confess  their 
faith.  But  now  he  appeared  in  his  fetters,  as  an  "  evil-doer,"  ii.  9,  for 
all  Christians  in  Rome  were  considered  as  maUfici.  Only  a  few  had  the 
courage  openly  to  show  themselves  as  his  friends  and  companions  in  the 
faith.  Then  he  was  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  between  the  expectation  of 
martyrdom  and  of  release,  though  the  latter  was  more  probable.  JVbio, 
on  the  contrary,  he  looked  forward  to  martyrdom  as  the  more  probable 
event.  He  informed  Timothy,  indeed,  that  the  Lord  had  granted  him 
power  to  testify  confidently  of  the  faith,  and  that  he  would  be  delivered 
from  the  jaws  of  the  lion,  from  the  death  that  was  then  threatening 

be  left  to  themselves.  In  perfect  accordance  with  this  injunction,  is  that  which  Paul  gives 
Timothy  in  2  Tim.  ii.  23,  to  avoid  "  foolish  and  unlearned  questions,"  since  they  only  en- 
ge  ndered  strife,  but  "  with  meekness  to  instruct  those  that  oppose  themselves,"  to  try 
whether  they  might  not  be  led  to  repent  of  their  errors,  and  be  brought  to  an  acknowl- 
edgement of  the  truth.  Here  also,  as  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus,  he  forbids  arguing  with  these 
false  teachers  on  their  erroneous  opinions.  It  was  quite  a  different  thing  to  point  out  the 
right  way  to  those  opponents  of  whose  recovery  some  hopes  might  be  entertained,  and  to 
this  class  the  first  passage  refers. 

*  It  may  indeed  appear  remarkable  that  Paul,  during  the  last  part  of  Nero's  reign,  at  a 
time  when  arbitrary  cruelty  so  predominated,  when  Christians  were  so  much  the  object  of 
public  hatred,  still  enjoyed  so  favorable  a  situation  as  a  prisoner,  so  that  he  could  see  his 
friends  and  write  epistles.  But  the  exact  situation  of  prisoners  depended  so  much  on 
accidental  circumstances,  that  we  cannot  draw  certain  conclusions  respecting  it  merely 
from  the  general  state  of  things.  Some  Christians  might,  for  aught  we  can  tell,  enjoy 
these  privileges  even  amidst  the  most  violent  persecutions. 


318  Paul's  second  confinement  at  eome. 

him;*  still  he  was  far  from  indulging  the  hope  of  being  freed  altogether 
from  the  danger  of  death.  But  this  confidence  he  did  enjoy,  that  the 
Lord  would  deliver  him  from  all  moral  evil,f  and  preserve  him  to  his 
heavenly  kingdom.  As  Paul  did  not  ascribe  the  power  of  persisting 
steadfastly  in  the  confession  of  the  faith  even  unto  death  to  himself,  but  to 
the  power  of  God,  who  strengthened  him  for  this  purpose  ;— he  there- 
fore thus  expressed  himself,  that  the  Lord  would  uphold  him  steadfast 
under  all  conflicts  even  until  death,  preserve  him  from  all  unfaithfulness, 
and  thus  lead  him  to  blessedness  in  his  kingdom.  The  apostle's  feelings 
in  the  prospect  of  martyrdom  are  inimitably  expressed  in  his  last 
epistle  ;l  his  elevated  composure,  his  self-forgetful n ess,  his  tender 
fatherly  care  for  his  disciple  Timothy,  his  concern  for  the  cause  of  the 
gospel  which  he  was  about  to  leave  exposed  to  so  many  attempts  to 
adulterate  it,  and  yet  his  confidence  in  the  divinity  of  that  cause,  and  in 
the  almightiness  of  God  watching  over  it  and  conducting  its  develop- 
ment, a  confidence  that  rose  victorious  over  every  doubt. 

When  he  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  and  the  end  of  his 
earthly  course  was  not  yet  in  sight,  he  said,  referring  to  the  defects  and 
infirmities  of  which  he  was  conscious  as  a  man,  that  he  was  far  from  be- 
lieving that  he  had  already  attained  his  aim — perfection ;  but  that  he  was 
continually  striving  after  that  aim,  if  he  might  attain  that  for  which  he 
was  called  by  Christ,  Philip,  iii.  12.  But  since  he  now  saw  himself 
actually  at  the  end  of  his  course — since  he  now  looked  back  on  that 
course  as  finished,  with  the  prospect  of  approaching  martyrdom,  and  by 
the  power  of  the  Lord  had  remained  faithful  under  all  his  conflicts  hitherto 
— and  since  he  was  animated  by  the  confident  persuasion  that,  by  the 

*  The  words  2  Tim.  iv.  17,  may  be  taken  as  a  figurative  expression,  to  denote  gen- 
erally deliverance  from  apparently  impending  death.  But  it  would  be  also  possible  to 
understand  them  literally,  for  at  that  time  it  would  be  always  possible  that  Paul,  notwith- 
standing his  Roman  citizenship,  might  have  reason  to  apprehend  so  shameful  a  death, 
though  he  was  finally  exempted  from  it. 

f  After  Paul  had  said,  2  Tim.  iv.  17,  that  the  Lord  had  delivered  him  from  impending 
death,  he  expressed  the  hope  that  he  would  still  further  deliver  him.  But  this  it  was 
needful  for  him  more  distinctly  to  define  and  limit,  for  he  would  have  said  more  than, 
under  the  circumstances,  he  was  warranted  to  expect,  if  he  had  not  added  a  limiting 
clause, — namely,  that  God  would  deliver  him  from  all  moral  evil,  such  as  want  of  fidelity 
to  the  gospel,  and  thus  bring  him  victorious  out  of  all  conflicts  into  his  heavenly  kingdom  ; 
whether  he  had  in  his  thoughts  that  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  he 
hoped  to  attain  by  martyrdom,  in  a  fuller  communion  with  Christ  and  God,  or  his  deliver- 
ance to  a  participation  in  the  perfected  kingdom  of  Christ  after  his  second  coming ;  as  he 
felt  certain,  if  he  were  preserved  from  all  evil,  of  partaking  in  this  kingdom  of  Christ, 
whether  he  lived  to  that  time  or  died  before  it  came.  I  will  not  now  attempt  to  decide 
between  these  two  modes  of  interpretation.  But  one  of  them,  in  connexion  with  what  goes 
before,  must  necessarily  be  taken.  I  cannot  allow  that  those  words  are  a  contradiction 
to  2  Tim.  iv.  6-8,  nor  assent  to  what  Credner,  in  his  Einleitung,  i.  p.  478,  founds  upon  it. 

%  How  strong  the  contrast  between  the  simple  manner  in  which  Paul  expresses  him- 
self, and  the  exaggerations  and  bombastic  style  of  after  times,  such  as  we  should  have  tc 
expect  in  a  later  writer  who  had  forged  an  epistle  in  the  name  of  Paul. 


Paul's  second  epistle  to  timothy.  319 

same  power,  he  would  be  brought  forth  victorious  from  the  conflicts  that 
still  awaited  him,* — at  this  critical  moment,  resting  alone  on  the  divine 
promise,  all  uncertainty  vanished  from  his  soul,  and  he  could  with  as- 
surance say  of  himself,  "  I  have  fought  the  good  fight,  I  have  finished 
my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith.  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a 
crown  of  righteousness."     2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8.f 

He  was  fir  less  occupied  with  thoughts  about  himself,  than  with, 
anxiety  for  the  church  which  he  was  on  the  point  of  leaving  in  a 
vehement  conflict  then  beginning,  both  internal  and  external,  but  the 
dangers  of  the  internal  conflict  were  those  which  gave  him  the  greatest 
uneasiness.  In  Lesser  Asia,  he  had  been  brought  into  frequent  collision 
with  a  false  Jewish-Christian  Gnosis,  which  was  spreading  in  opposition 
to  the  simple  gospel.  He  saw  in  spirit  that  this  false  tendency  was  con- 
tinually gaining  ground,  and  that,  by  its  arts  of  deception,  it  was  se- 
ducing numbers.  Still,  he  was  confident,  that  its  deceptions  would  at 
last  be  exposed,  and  that  the  Lord  would  maintain  that  gospel  which  he 
had  entrusted  to  his  ministry,  and  without  him,  preserve  it  pure  until 
the  day  of  his  second  coming.J  Since  he  might  assume,  that  these  false 
teachers  Avere  known  to  Timothy,  and  had  no  doubt  often  conferred  with 
him  on  the  means  of  counteracting  them,  he  satisfied  himself  with  a 
general  delineation  of  their  character.  He  mentioned  amongst  others, 
those  who  taught  that  the  resurrection  was  already  past  (like  the  later 
Gnostics),  and  who  probably  explained  everything  which  Christ  had  said 
respecting  the  resurrection,  of  the  spiritual  awakening  by  the  divine 
power  of  the  gospel. .  From  this  single  mark  we  may  conclude,  that  in 
general  they  indulged  in  a  very  arbitrary  treatment  of  the  historical 
facts  of  religion,  as  far  as  these  did  not  harmonize  with  their  preconceived 
opinions.§ 

*  This  confidence  he  also  expressed  in  Philip.  L  20. 

f  Hence  there  is  no  contradiction  whatever  between  the  judgment  Paul  expresses  of 
himself  in  this  epistle  and  in  that  to  the  Pbilippians. 

\  If  we  picture  to  ourselves  how  Paul  was  theu  occupied  with  the  thoughts  of  death, 
how  uncertain  his  condition,  and  under  what  perplexing  relations  Timothy  found  him- 
self in  the  field  of  labors  where  Paul  had  left  him,  we  cannot  deem  it  very  surprising 
that  he  should  communicate  to  him  these  fuller  instructions,  although  he  still  hoped  to  see 
him  again  in  Rome. 

§  It  may  be  doubted  whether  Alexander  the  coppersmith,  mentioned  in  2  Tim.  !v. 
14,  belonged  to  the  number  of  these  false  teachers.  In  this  case,  he  would  be  the  s  ime 
as  the  person  mentioned  in  1  Tim.  i.  20.  It  would  indeed  be  possible  that  this  false 
teacher  from  Lesser  Asia,  exasperated  at  being  excluded  by  Paul  from  church  communion, 
when  became  to  Rome,  sought  to  take  revenge  on  the  apostle.  And  "our  words," 
tjfjLETepot.  7i6yoi,  2  Tim.  iv.  15,  might  then  be  understood,  not  of  the  Christian  doctrino 
generally,  but  of  the  pure  exposition  of  the  evangelical  doctrine  as  it  was  given  by  Paul. 
But  a  Gentile  or  Jew  of  Lesser  Asia  might  be  intended,  who  violently  persecuted  Chris- 
tianity. In  this  case,  he  would  be  distinct  from  the  person  mentioned  in  the  First  Epistle 
to  Timothy ;  and  it  would  be  on  that  account  by  no  means  clear,  that  the  author  of 
the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  some  one  else  than  Paul,  who,  from  a  mistake,  had 
made  Alexander  a  false  teacher,  and  had  classed  him  with  HymenaBus ;  for  why  should 


520  Paul's  martyrdom. 

We  cannot  determine  with  certainty  the  year  in  which  Paul's  martyr- 
dom occurred.  We  can  only  place  it  in  one  of  the  last  of  Nero's  reign. 
And1  with  this  supposition  another  circumstance  agrees.  At  this  time 
most  probably  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  by  an  apostolic 
man  of  the  Pauline  school.*  At  its  conclusion,  xiii.  23,  we  find  mention 
made  of  the  lately  obtained  release  of  Timothy,  whom  we  cannot  sup- 
pose to  be  any  other  than  the  disciple  and  companion  of  Paul.  It  was 
Paul's  desire  that  he  should  come  to  him,  and  the  zealous  sympathy 
which  he  evinced  had  the  effect  of  causing  him  to  be  apprehended  as  one 
of  the  most  active  members  of  the  hated  sect.  If  this  happened  at  the 
time -of  the  Neronian  persecution,  Timothy  would  probably  have  shared 
the  fate  of  all  the  Christians  at  Rome  who  could  then  be  discovered. 
But  if  it  happened  some  years  later,  it  is  not  improbable  that,  by  the  in- 
fluence of  particular  circumstances,  Timothy  obtained  his  freedom  after 
the  martyrdom  of  Paul. 

not  so  common  a  name  as  Alexander  belong  to  two  different  persons  in  Lesser  Asia  ? 
There  is  no  ground  whatever  to  suppose  that  this  Alexander  was  the  same  who  is  men- 
tioned in  Acts  xix.  33,  for  it  is  far  from  being  evident  that  he  was  so  violent  an  enemy 
of  Christianity ;  the  Jews  put  him  forward,  not  to  make  complaints  against  the  Christiana 
or  PauL  but  rather  to  prevent  the  rage  of  the  heathens  against  the  enemies  of  their  goda 
from  being  turned  against  themselves. 

*  See  Bleek'a  Introduction  to  this  Epistle,  p.  434. 


BOOK  IV. 


A   REVIEW    OF    THE    LABORS    OF    JAMES    AND    PETER    DURING 
THIS    PERIOD. 


CHAPTER  I. 


As  along  with  that  unity  of  the  spirit  which  proceeded  from  Christ,  we 
have  observed  an  important  difference  existing  in  the  forms  of  its  represen- 
tation among  the  apostles,  so  the  apostle  Paul,  and  that  James  who  was 
known  as  a  brother  of  the  Lord,  present  the  most  striking  contrast  to 
each  other,  whether  we  regard  their  natural  peculiarities,  the  formation 
of  their  Christian  characters,  or  the  sphere  of  their  labors.  In  Paul,  Chris- 
tianity is  exhibited  in  its  most  decided  self-subsistence,  wholly  freed  from 
the  preparatory  garb  of  Judaism ;  while  James  represents  the  new  spirit 
under  the  ancient  form,  and  we  may  observe  in  him  the  gradual  transi- 
tion from  the  old  to  the  new.  Hence  Paul  and  James  mark  the  two 
extreme  limits  in  the  development  of  Christianity  from  Judaism ;  as  Paul 
was  the  chief  instrument  for  presenting  Christianity  to  mankind  as  the 
new  creation,  so  was  James  for  exhibiting  the  organic  connexion  of 
Christianity  with  the  preparatory  and  prefiguring  system  of  Judaism. 
After  the  martyrdom  of  the  elder  James,  who  was  a  son  of  Zebedee  and 
brother  of  John,  only  one  specially  influential  person  of  this  name  ap- 
pears in  Christian  history,  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  under  the  titles  of  the  Brother  of  the  Zord,  and  the  Jlist,  was 
held  in  the  highest  esteem  by  Christians  of  Jewish  descent.  But  from 
ancient  times  it  has  been  doubted,  whether  this  James  was,  strictly 
speaking,  a  brother  of  the  Lord,  that  is,  either  a  son  of  Joseph  by  a 
former  marriage,  or  more  probably  a  later  son  of  Mary,*  and  therefore, 
a  different  person  from  the  apostle,  the  son  of  Alpheus ;  or  whether  he 
was  in  a  general  sense  a  relation  of  Jesus,  a  son  of  Mary's  sister,  a  son 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  §  22,  or  p.  29. 


322  THE    APOSTLE   JAMES. 

of  Cleopas  or  Alpheus,  and  accordingly  identical  with  the  apostle  of  thia 


*  This  question  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  in  the  apostolic  history.  Dr.  Sehnecken- 
burger,  in  his  acute  and  profound  investigation  (in  his  Annotatio  ad  Epistolam  Jacobi. 
Stuttgart,  1832,  p.  144,)  has  brought  the  hypothesis  of  only  one  James  to  a  higher  degree  of 
probability  than  it  had  before  attained,  and  has  said  many  things  deserving  consideration, 
and  tending  to  remove  the  difficulties  attached  to  it ;  but  after  all  his  remarks,  many  rea- 
sons for  doubting  remain.  Later  investigations,  especially  those  of  Credner  in  his  Eiiv- 
leitung,  p.  573,  have  thrown  additional  weight  into  the  opposite  scale.  We  wish  to  present 
in  an  impartial  manner  the  arguments  for  and  against  this  hypothesis.  Since,  after  the 
death  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  only  one  James  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  most 
influential  men  in  the  first  apostolic  church,  and  ranking  with  those  apostles  who  were 
most  esteemed,  there  is  the  highest  probability  that  this  James  was  no  other  than  the  only 
apostle  still  living  of  this  name.  If  the  term  "brother,"  ddetybc,  is  understood  only  in  a 
laxer  sense,  the  title  of  "brother  of  the  Lord"  proves  nothing  against  the  identity  of  the 
person  ;  for,  from  comparing  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  xxviii.  1,  Mark  xv.  40,  with  John  xix.  25, 
it  is  evident  that  James  the  apostle,  son  of  Alpheus  or  Cleopas  (both  names,  with  different 
pronunciations,  derived  from  the  Hebrew  ■'BVn),  was  really  a  son  of  Mary's  sister  the 
mother  of  Jesus.  As  so  near  a  relation  of  Jesus,  he  might  accordingly  be  distinguished 
from  the  other  apostles  by  the  title  of  a  brother  of  the  Lord.  But  then  it  is  asked,  Why 
was  he  not  rather  distinguished  by  the  strictly  appropriate  name  of  "  cousin,"  dveipibc  ? 
And  if  at  that  time  there  were  persons  in  existence  who  might  with  strict  propriety  be 
called  "brothers  of  the  Lord,"  is  it  not  so  much  less  probable,  that  this  surname  in  an  im- 
proper sense  would  be  applied  to  him  ?  Nevertheless,  we  may  suppose,  that  in  common 
discourse — since  it  was  not  a  point  of  consequence  to  mark  definitely  the  degree  of  kin 
between  Jesus  and  this  James,  but  only  to  represent  him  in  general  terms  as  enjoying  the 
honor  of  near  relationship  to  the  Lord, — it  had  become  customary  to  designate  him  simply 
a  brother  of  the  Lord,  especially  among  the  Judaizing  Christians,  by  whom  such  distinc- 
tions of  earthly  affinity  would  be  most  highly  prized  ;  and  this  might  be  still  more  easily 
explained,  if  we  admit  with  Schneckenburger,  that  after  the  death  of  Joseph  (which  took 
place  at  an  early  period),  Mary  removed  to  the  house  of  her  sister,  the  wife  of  Alpheus ; 
hence,  it  would  be  usual  to  designate  her  sons  who  lived  from  their  childhood  with  Jesus, 
who  had  no  other  brothers,  simply  as  the  brethren  of  Jesus.  Thus,  then,  this  James 
would  be  one  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus  who  are  named  in  Matt.  xiii.  55,  Mark  vi.  3. 
Among  these  we  find  a  Joses,  who,  in  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  is  distinguished  as  the  brother  of 
James,  and  a  Judas;  and  if  the  designation  'Ia/cw/?<w,  given  to  the  apostle  Judas  is 
to  be  explained,  on  comparing  it  with  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  v.  1,  by  supplying  the  word 
"brother,"  (which  cannot  be  assumed  as  absolutely  certain,)  we  shall  also  again  find  in 
him  a  brother  of  the  apostle  James.  And  the  one  named  Simon  among  these  brethren 
•we  may  perhaps  find  agaiu  in  the  list  of  the  apostles,  as  all  three  are  named  together  in 
Acts  i.  13.  According  to  that  supposition,  it  would  be  no  longer  surprising  that  the  breth- 
ren of  Christ  are  often  mentioned  in  connexion  with  his  mother ;  and  yet  from  that  cir- 
cumstance no  evidence  can  be  deduced  that  would  prove  them  to  be  in  a  strict  sense  his 
brethren.  We  must  then  assume  with  Schneckenburger,  that  when  Matthew  (xiii.  55), 
after  the  mention  of  the  twelve  apostles,  distinguishes  the  brethren  of  Jesus  from  them,  it 
proceeded  from  the  want  of  chronological  exactness  in  his  mode  of  narration. 

But  if  several  of  the  so-called  brethren  of  Jesus  "were  among  the  apostles,  still  the 
manner  in  which  the  former  are  distinguished  from  the  latter  in  Acts  i.  14,  is  remarkable. 
Besides,  according  to  the  account  in  Mark  iii.  31,  a  state  of  mind  towards  Jesus  is  sup- 
posed to  exist  in  these  brethren,  which  could  not  be  attributed  to  the  apostles,  and  yet  it 
appears  from  comparing  this  account  with  the  parallel  passages  in  Matt.  xii.  and  Luke  viii. 
that  this  incident  must  be  placed  after  the  choice  of  the  twelve  apostles.  This  view  ia 
confirmed  by  the  disposition  manifested  by  these  brethren  of  Christ,  even  in  the  last  half- 


THE    APOSTLE    JAMES.  323 

If  we  p;it  together  all  that  is  handed  down  to  us  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  in  other  historical   records,  the  most  probable  result  of  the 

year  before  his  sufferings,  vii.  3.  All  this  taken  together,  must  decide  us  in  favor  of  the  sup- 
position, that  the  brethren  of  Jesus,  commonly  mentioned  in  connexion  with  Mary  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  are  to  be  altogether  distinguished  from  the  apostles,  and  therefore  they  must  be  con- 
sidered as  the  brethren  of  Jesus  in  a  stricter  sense,  either  as  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  for- 
mer marriage,  or  the  later  born  sous  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  which  from  Matt.  i.  25,  is  most 
probable.  That  Christ  when  dying  said  to  John,  that  from  that  time  he  should  treat  Mary 
as  his  mother,  can  at  all  events  oppose  only  the  supposition,  that  these  brethren  were  the 
offspring  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  not  the  supposition  that  they  were  the  step-sons  of 
Mary.  But  even  against  the  first  supposition  this  objection  is  not  decisive  ;  for  if  these 
brethren  of  Jesus  still  continued  estranged  from  him  in  their  disposition,  we  can  at  once 
perceive  why  at  his  death  he  commended  his  mother  to  his  beloved  disciple  John.  It  may 
indeed  appear  surprising,  that  these  brethren  of  Christ,  according  to  Matthew  xiii.  55,  bore 
the  same  names  as  his  cousins,  but  this  can  be  affirmed  with  certainty  only  of  two,  and  as 
the  two  sisters  had  one  name,  it  might  happen,  owing  to  particular  circumstances,  that 
some  of  the  sons  on  both  sides  should  bear  the  same  name. 

But  from  what  has  been  said,  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  the  James  who  is  distin- 
guished in  the  New  Testament  as  a  brother  of  the  Lord,  was  one  of  these  brethren  of 
Christ  in  a  stricter  sense.  It  might  still  be  consistent  with  that  fact,  that  this  James  was 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  James  who  was  the  actual  brother  of  the  Lord,  and,  as  a 
cousin  of  Christ  who  was  honored  with  this  name,  was  to  be  held  as  identical  with  the 
apostle,  although  in  this  case  it  is  less  probable  that  when  an  actual  brother  of  Jesus  bore 
the  name  of  James,  the  cousin  should  be  honored  with  the  same  title,  instead  of  being 
distinguished  by  the  epithet  "  cousin"  from  that  other  James,  to  whom  the  surname  of 
brother  of  the  Lord  would  in  strictest  propriety  be  given. 

If  we  are  disposed  to  examine  more  closely  the  passages  in  the  Pauline  epistles  which 
contain  a  particular  reference  to  this  point,  there  are  two  especially  deserving  of  notice. 
As  to  the  passage  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5,  "as  well  as  other  apostles  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord," 
d>C  Kai  ol  loinol  unooroloi  Kal  ol  ddelcfiol  tov  Kvplov,  it  cannot  be  proved  from  these  words 
that  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  were  distinct  from  the  apostles,  for  they  may  be  supposed  to 
mean,  that  Paul,  by  the  other  apostks,  understood  those  who  could  not  claim  such  a  rela- 
tionship to  the  Lord,  and  that  he  particularly  distinguishes  those  who  were  brethren  of  the 
Lord  from  the  other  apostles,  because,  in  virtue  of  that  relationship,  they  stood  high  in 
the  opinion  of  the  party  with  whom  he  had  here  to  do.  That  he  specially  names  Peter 
immediately  after,  rather  favors  the  notion  that  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  as  well  as  Peter, 
belong  to  the  number  of  the  apostles.  Yet  this  is  not  a  decisive  proof,  for  it  would  surely 
be  possible  that,  although  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  did  not  belong  to  the  apostles,  Paul 
might  mention  them  in  this  connexion,  because  they,  or  some  of  them,  were  held  in  equal 
estimation  by  the  Jewish  Christians  of  Palestine ;  and  as,  along  with  them,  Peter  was 
most  highly  respected,  he  is  particularly  mentioned  at  the  same  time-  It  is  indeed  possi- 
ble, that  Paul  here  uses  the  term  "apostle,"  not  in  the  strictest  sense,  but  in  a  wider 
meaning,  as  in  Rom.  xvi.  1 ;  and  so  much  the  more,  since  he  immediately  afterwards  men- 
tions Barnabas,  to  whom  the  name  of  an  apostle  could  be  applied  only  in  that  more  gen- 
eral acceptation  of  the  term.  The  second  important  passage  is  Gal.  i.  19,  where  Paul,  after 
speaking  of  his  conference  with  the  apostle  Peter  at  Jerusalem,  adds,  that  he  had  seen  no 
other  of  the  apostles,  "save  James  the  Lord's  brother."  Yet,  from  this  passage,  it  cannot 
be  so  certainly  inferred  as  Dr.  Schneckenburger  thinks,  that  the  James  here  named  was 
one  of  the  apostles.  The  state  of  the  case  may  be  conceived  to  have  been  thus :  Paul 
had  originally  in  his  thoughts  only  a  negative  position,  he  had  seen  no  other  apostle  than 
Peter  at  Jerusalem.  But  as  it  afterwards  occurred  to  him,  that  he  had  seen  at  Jerusalem 
James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  who,  though  no  apostle,  was  held  in  apostolic  estimation 
by  the  Judaizers,  on  this  account  he  added,  by  way  of  limitation,  a  reference  to  James. 


324  THE    APOSTLE   JAMES. 

whole  is,  that  this  James  was  one  of  the  brethren  of  Christ,  of  whom 
we  have  spoken  in  our  Life  of  Christ,  p.  29.     Thus  it  appears  how 

We  must  therefore  suppose  that  with  the  use  of  the  word  "save,"  el  firj,  the  idea  of 
"  apostle"  extended  itself  so  as  to  include  one  who  was  only  related  to  the  apostolic  office. 
It  may,  moreover,  be  asked  whether  Paul  would  have  expressed  himself  in  this  manner, 
if  he  had  reckoned  James  in  the  stricter  sense  among  the  apostles  ?  Should  we  not  ex- 
pect in  this  case  that,  instead  of  first  expressing  so  universal  a  negation  in  order  imme- 
diately after  to  qualify  it,  he  would  have  said  from  the  beginning  that  he  saw  no  other 
apostles  than  those  two,  who  also  seemed  to  be  pillars  in  the  church  ?  When  Schnecken- 
burger,  from  the  words  in  Acts  ix.  27,  infers  that  Paul  must  at  that  time  have  conferred 
with  at  least  two  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  he  attaches  greater  weight  than  can  be  allowed 
with  certainty  to  single  expressions  in  this  short  narrative. 

Tet,  if  we  compare  on  this  point  the  oldest  ecclesiastical  tradition — the  account  in  the 
gospel  of  the  Hebrews  (see  Hieronym.  de  V.  I.  c.  ii.) — with  1  Cor.  xv.  7,  it  will  appear  to 
favor  the  identity  of  the  one  James ;  for  in  that  gospel  it  is  said  that  Christ,  after  his  res- 
urrection, appeared  to  James  the  Just,  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  But  in  the  passage  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the  same  James  seems  to  be  mentioned  as  one  of  the 
twelve  apostles.  Still  we  find  here  nothing  absolutely  certain,  for  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
the  reference  in  that  gospel  is  to  the  same  appearance  of  Christ  as  in  the  epistle.  And  if 
it  be  assumed  that  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  was  then  held  in  so  great  esteem, 
that,  when  this  name  was  mentioned,  only  one  individual  would  be  generally  thought  of, 
it  is  not  perfectly  clear,  from  his  being  brought  forward  in  this  connexion,  that  he  was 
reckoned  by  Paul  among  the  apostles.  Then  there  is  the  tradition  of  Hegesippus,  in 
Euseb.  ii.  23,  which  is  to  be  taken  into  account.  When  he  says  that  James,  the  brother 
of  the  Lord,  undertook  with  the  apostles,  fiera  tl>v  ukootoAov,  the  guidance  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  he  means  to  distinguish  James  from  the 
apostles,  otherwise  he  would  have  said  with  the  others,  fiera  t&v  XomQv,  although  we 
would  not  consider  the  other  interpretation  as  impossible,  especially  in  writers  of  this  class, 
in  whom  we  do  not  look  for  great  precision  in  their  mode  of  expression.  Also,  the  whole 
narrative  of  Hegesippus  leads  us  to  believe,  that  he  considered  James  as  distinct  from  the 
apostles ;  for,  although  his  representation  carries  in  it,  at  all  events,  marks  of  internal 
improbability,  yet  it  would  not  appear  altogether  irrational,  on  the  supposition  that  this 
James  was  an  apostle  appointed  by  Christ  himself.  But  we  must  compare  with  this  pas- 
sage the  wtrds  of  Hegesippus  in  Euseb.  iv.  22  t/uerd  to  /xapTvpijaac  '1o.ku0ov  tov  diicaiov, 
d)C  Kal  6  Kvpioc  etu  rw  avrC)  loyu,  nd?av  6  ek  Oe'iov  ovtov  Sv/tedv  6  tov  K?mtvu  nadioTaTai 
EmcitoiTOs'  bv  npoeOevTo  ndvTEg,  bvTa  dveilubv  tov  Kvplov  dEvrepov,  (after  James,  the  Just, 
had  suffered  martyrdom,  as  did  the  Bord  for  the  same  cause,  Simeon,  a  son  of  Cleopas, 
James'  uncle,  was  appointed  bishop,  whom  all  bad  proposed  for  the  office,  being  the  second 
cousin  of  the  Lord.)  If  we  understand  by  these  words,  that  this  Simeon  was  called  the 
second  nephew  in  relation  to  the  afore-meutioned  James  the  Just,  as  the  first  nephew  of 
the  Lord,  it  would  follow  that  that  James,  as  a  nephew  of  the  Lord,  is  called  his 
brother.  Yet,  if  another  interpretation  is  possible,  according  to  which  Hegesippus 
agrees  with  himself  in  reference  to  the  words  before  quoted,  such  an  interpretation 
must  be  readily  preferred.  And  this  interpretation  is  that  which  agrees  best  with  the 
words  in  their  existing  position.  For,  since  James  is  the  principal  subject  in  the  first 
half  of  the  sentence,  the  "  his,"  ovtov,  must  be  referred  to  him.  Cleopas,  accordingly, 
is  called  the  uncle  of  James,  and  his  son  Simeon  cannot  therefore  be  the  brother  of  James, 
but  is  his  cousin;  and  as  Cleopas  («— Alpheus)  is  the  uncle  of  Jesus,  (and.  according  to 
Hegesippus  in  Euseb.  hi.  11,  on  the  side  of  Joseph  as  well  as  of  Mary,)  Simeon  is  the 
cousin  of  Jesus  and  the  cousin  of  James,  which  again  favors  the  opinion  that  the  last  two 
were  brothers.  But  Hegesippus  might  call  this  Simeon  a  second  nephew,  since  he  looked 
upon  the  apostle  James,  the  son  of  Alpheus,  who  was  no  longer  living,  as  the  first  nephew. 
We  might  also  insert  a  stop  after  nvpiov,  and  connect  devrepov  with   irpoEdevTo ;  by  this 


THE   APOSTLE    JAMES.  325 

very  much  the  coarse  of  his  religious  development  was  distinguished 
from  that  of  the  apostle  Paul.  The  latter,  during  the  life  of  Christ  on 
earth,  was  at  a  distance  from  all  personal  outward  communication  with 
him,  and  learnt  to  know  him  first  by  spiritual  communion.  James,  on 
the  contrary,  stood  in  the  closest  family  relation  to  the  Redeemer,  and 
from  the  first  was  present  with  him  during  the  whole  of  his  earthly  de- 
velopment ;  but  it  was  exactly  this  circumstance  Avhich  contributed  to 
his  being  more  slow  to  recognise  in  the  son  of  man,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and 
wdiile  he  clave  only  to  the  earthly  appearance,  he  was  prevented  from 
penetrating  through  the  shell  to  the  substance.  Paul,  by  a  violent  crisis, 
made  the  transition  from  the  most  vehement  and  unsparing  opposition 
to  the  gospel,  to  the  most  zealous  advocacy  of  it.  James  gradually  ad 
vanced  from  Judaism,  which  he  held  with  great  earnestness  and  depth, 
and  to  which  he  added  a  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  that  constantly 
became  more  decisive,  to  Christianity  as  the  glorification  and  fulfilling  of 
the  law. 

There  may  be  some  truth  at  bottom  in  what  is  narrated  by  the  Chris- 
tian historian  Hegesippus,  that  this  James  led  from  childhood  the  life  of 
a  Nazarene.  If  we  consider  what  an  impression  the  appearances  at  and 
after  the  birth  of  Christ,  and  the  conviction  that  the  first-born  son  of 
Mary  was  destined  to  be  the  Messiah,  must  have  left  on  the  minds  of  his 
parents,  it  maybe  easily  explained  how  they  felt  themselves  compelled  to 
dedicate  their  first-born  son  James,*  to  the  service  of  Jehovah  in  strict 
abstinence  for  the  whole  of  his  life.  To  this  also  it  might  be  owing,  that 
the  freer  mode  of  life  which  Christ  adopted  with  his  disciples  was  less 
congenial  to  him ;  and  with  his  strict,  legal,  Jewish  convictions  he  could 
not  comprehend  the  new  spirit  which  revealed  itself  in  Christ's  words ; 
many  of  these  must  have  appeared  to  him  as  "  hard  sayings."  Proceed- 
ing from  the  common  Jewish  views,  he  expected  that  Jesus,  if  he  were 
the  Messiah,  would  verify  himself  to  be  such  in  the  presence  of  the 
people  by  a  sign  that  would  compel  the  universal  recognition  of  his 
claims,  by  the  establishment  of  a  visible  kingdom  in  earthly  glory.  By 
the  impression  of  Christ's  ministry  he  became  indeed  excited  to  believe, 
but  the  power  of  early  habit  and  prejudice  always  counteracted  that  im- 
pression, and  he  found  himself  in  a  state  of  indecision  from  which  he 
could  not  at  once  free  himself.  Only  half  a  year  before  the  last  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  we  find  him  in  this  vacillating  condition,  for  John  does  not 
in  this  respect  distinguish  him  from  the  other  brethren  of  Jesus,  who 
certainly  were  thus  in  doubt ;  John  vii.  5.     But  after  the  ascensidn 

construction,  mention  would  be  made  of  only  one  cousin  of  the  Lord,  as  the  successor  of 
his  brother,  as  the  second  overseer  of  the  church.  But  the  position  of  the  words  is  very 
much  against  this  construction.  Certainly,  the  testimony  of  Hegesippus  must  have  great 
weight,  on  account  of  his  high  antiquily,  his  descent,  and  his  connexion  with  the  Jewish 
Christians  of  Palestine.  But  it  is  undeniable,  if  we  compare  the  two  passages  from  the 
Hypotyposes  of  Clement,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  ii.  1,  that  he  distinguishes  James,  who  bore 
the  surname  of  the  Just,  as  an  apostle  in  the  stricter  sense  of  the  word. 
*  His  being  described  by  the  appellation  of  the  son,  indicates  that  he  was  the  eldest. 


326  THE    APOSTLE   JAMES. 

of  Christ,  he  appears  as  a  decided  and  zealous  member  of  the  company 
of  disciples  ;  Acts  i.  13.  This  leads  us  to  suppose  that  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  was  the  transition  point  with  him, from  a  vacillating  to  a  fixed 
and  unshaken  faith.  We  see  how  important  the  Saviour  deemed  it  to 
produce  such  a  faith  in  him,  by  his  honoring  him  with  a  special  appear 
ance  after  the  resurrection  (1  Cor.  xv.  7),  whether  this  was  occasioned 
or  not,  by  his  having  expressed  doubts  like  Thomas.*  This  James  ob- 
tained constantly  increasing  respect  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem. 

Every  feature  of  his  character  which  we  can  gather  from  the  Acts, 
from  Josephus,f  and  from  the  traditions  of  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius,J 
well  agrees  with  the  image  of  him  presented  in  the  epistle  that  bears  his 
name.  By  his  strict,  pious  life,  which  agreed  with  the  Jewish  notions  ot 
legal  piety,  he  won  the  universal  veneration,  not  only  of  the  believers 
among  the  Jews,  but  also  of  the  better  disposed  among  his  countrymen 
generally  ;  on  this  account  he  was  distinguished  by  the  surname  of  the 
Just,pi«we,  dtttaoig  ;  and,  if  we  may  credit  the  account  of  Hegesippus,  he 
was  viewed  as  men  of  distinguished  and  commanding  excellence  are 
viewed  in  times  of  corruption  and  ruin,  and  hence  was  termed  the  bul- 
wark of  the  people.§  According  to  the  representations  of  this  writer, 
he  must  have  lived  after  the  manner  of  the  strictest  ascetics  among 
the  Jews.  The  consecration  of  his  childhood  had  already  introduced 
hi n  i  to  such  a  mode  of  life,  and  we  might  suppose  that  he  had  already 
won  by  it  peculiar  respect  among  the  Jews,  if  on  that  supposition  it  were 
not  surprising  that  no  trace  can  be  found  of  it  in  the  Gospels,  no  marks 
of  special  distinction  awarded  to  him  by  his  brethren.  At  all  events,  he 
might  afterwards  avail  himself  of  this  ascetic  strictness  as  a  means  of 
attracting  the  attention  of  the  multitude  to  his  person,  and  thereby  to 
the  doctrine  he  published.  This  mode  of  life  considered  in  itself,  pro- 
vided its  value  was  not  rated  too  high,  was  by  no  means  unchristian. 
What  Hegesippus  narrates  of  him  perfectly  suits  his  character,  that  he 
frequently  prostrated  himself  on  his  knees  in  the  temple,  calling  upon  God 

*  The  narrative  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  (see  Life  of  Christ,  p.  432)  is  not  an 
authority  of  sufficient  credit  for  us  to  venture  to  follow  it  here.  It  tells  us  that  James, 
after  partaking  of  the  Last  Supper  with  Christ,  made  a  vow  that  he  would  not  again  taste 
food  till  he  had  seen  him  risen  from  the  dead ;  that  Christ  appeared  to  him  as  the  Risen 
One,  and  said,  "  Now  eat  thy  bread,  for  the  Son  of  Man  is  risen  from  the  dead."  "We 
must  certainly  consider  how  important  it  was  for  the  hesitating  and  doubting  James,  who 
afterwards  knew  so  well  how  to  describe  the  unhappiness  of  such  a  state  (i.  6),  to  attain 
to  the  certainty  on  this  subject,  which  such  an  occurrence  would  give  him,  and  which  such 
a  vow  led  him  to  expect.  But  not  only  is  the  work  of  the  Jewish  Christian,  who  be- 
stowed so  much  pains  in  embellishing  the  history  of  James,  not  a  credible  source  of  in- 
formation in  itself,  but  there  is  also  a  palpable  contradiction  in  the  chronology  of  the 
history  of  the  resurrection,  between  this  narrative  and  Paul's  account. 

f  Joseph.  Archseol.  xx.  9.  \  Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  23. 

§  Perhaps  cy  Ve»  or  Qi'h  £»,  which  comes  nearer  the  phraseology  of  Hegesiprus, 
unless,  which  is  indeed  less  probable,  we  read,  with  Fuller,  ey^  t>,  which  Hegesippus 
translates  "  bulwark  of  the  people,"  nepiox?/  tov  Xaov. 


THE    APOSTLE    JAMES.  6)1 1 

to  forgive  the  sins  of  his  people,  (probably  having  a  special  reference  to 
the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  against  the  Messiah,) — that  the  divine  judg- 
ments on  the  unbelievers  might  be  averted, — and  that  they  might  be  led 
to  repentance  and  faith,  and  thus  to  a  participation  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  glorified  Messiah. 

But  some  important  doubts  may  be  raised  against  the  credibility  of 
this  account  of  Hegesippus,  taken  in  its  full  extent.  His  whole  narrative- 
contains  much  fiction,  and  bears  the  stamp  of  the  Ebionitish  mode  of 
thinking  to  which  he  was  probably  given.  That  Ebionite  party  among 
whom  an  ascetic,  theosophic  tendency  prevailed,  and  who  circulated 
apocryphal  writings  under  the  name  of  James,  had  probably  formed  an 
ideal  conception  of  his  character  in  harmony  with  their  own  peculiarities, 
and  Hegesippus  might  mistake  the  image  delineated  in  their  traditions 
for  an  historical  reality.  The  Epistle  of  James  by  no  means  bears  de- 
cided marks  of  such  a  tendency,  for  everything  which  has  been  supposed 
to  be  of  this  kind  may  very  properly  be  referred  to  the  simple  Christian 
renunciation  of  the  world,  such  as  has  its  seat  in  the  disposition.  If  the 
Jewish  love  of  gain  is  here  spoken  against,  if  the  earthly-mindedness  of 
the  rich,  the  homage  paid  to  this  class  and  the  contempt  of  the  poor  are 
condemned,  and  it  is  declared  to  be  precisely  among  the  poor  that  the 
gospel  has  found  the  most  ready  entrance,  exalting  them  to  the  highest 
dignity,  yet  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  the  author  of  this  epistle  entirely 
condemned,  like  the  Ebionites,  all  possession  whatever  of  earthly  goods. 
This  Epistle  is  especially  important,  not  only  for  illustrating  the  char- 
acter of  James,  but  also  for  giving  us  an  insight  into  the  state  of  the 
Christian  churches  which  were  formed  from  Judaism,  and  were  unmixed 
with  Christians  of  Gentile  descent.  According  to  an  opinion  very  gen- 
erally prevalent  from  ancient  times,  we  should  be  led  to  believe  that  the 
peculiar  doctrinal  system  of  the  apostle  Paul  had  already  been  formed 
and  disseminated  when  this  epistle  was  written,  and  that  those  churches 
particularly  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  had  been  affected  by  the  influence 
of  this  Pauline  system.  The  opinion  we  refer  to  is,  that  James  in  this 
epistle  either  combated  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  in 
and  for  itself,  or  a  misunderstanding,  and  an  erroneous  application,  of  it. 
We  can,  certainly,  well  imagine,  that  James,  who  had  advanced  in  grad- 
ual development  from  the  law  to  the  gospel  as  the  fulfilling  of  the  law 
— who,  retaining  his  Jewish  convictions,  by  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Lord 
and  Saviour,  the  Author  of  the  new  divine  life,  continually  spiritualized 
and  glorified  these  convictions  more  and  more, — might  from  such  a 
course  of  development,  misunderstand  the  Pauline  type  of  doctrine  which 
had  been  formed  under  a  wholly  opposite  course  of  development.  We 
can  suppose,  that  when  he  met  such  a  mode  of  expression,  he  might  feel 
it  his  duty  to  combat  it,  since  practically  injurious  consequences  appeared 
to  flow  from  it.  We  can  suppose  that  he  knew  not  how  to  separate  the 
correct  understanding  and  the  misunderstanding  from  one  another,  since 
to  him  the  whole  mode  of  contemplating  the  subject  was  quite  foreign. 


328  THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES. 

Thus  James   might   have    combated    Paul,  though   both    were  bound 
together  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

And  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  support  this  opinion  by  many  single 
passages  in  the  epistle  taken  alone,  without  a  reference  to  their  connex- 
ion with  the  whole  ;*  for  it  seems  as  if  the  express  reference  to  the 
Pauline  formula  of  the  justification  to  be  obtained  by  faith  alone,  and  to 
which  works  can  contribute  nothing,  could  not  be  mistaken  ;  especially 
as  the  same  examples  of  faith  as  those  mentioned  by  Paul,  namely  those 
of  Abraham  and  Sarah,  are  adduced.  But  this  opinion,  though  plausible 
at  first  sight,  if  we  examine  more  closely  the  relation  of  particular  pas- 
sages to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  epistle,  will  soon  appear  untenable.  The 
error  in  reference  to  faith  which  James  combats  in  this  epistle,  is  cer- 
tainly not  one  altogether  isolated  ;  but  it  appears  as  a  single  offset  pro- 
ceeding with  many  others  from  the  root  of  one  false  principle ;  and  this 
principle  is  quite  distinct  from  that  which  would  admit  of  an  application, 
whether  correct  or  incorrect,  of  the  Pauline  doctrine.  It  was  the  ten- 
dency of  the  Jewish  spirit,  mistaking*  the  life  of  religion  as  seated  in  the 
disposition,  everywhere  taking  up  the  mere  dead  form,  the  appearance, 
instead  of  the  reality,  in  religion — the  same  tendency,  which  substituted 
a  lifeless,  arrogant  acquaintance  with  the  letter  for  the  genuine  wisdom 
inseparable  from  the  divine  life — which  prided  itself  in  an  inoperative 
knowledge  of  the  law,  without  paying  any  attention  to  the  practice  of 
the  law — which  placed  devotion  in  outward  ceremonies,  and  neglected 
that  devotion  which  shows  itself  in  works  of  love — which  contented  it- 
self with  the  verbal  expression  of  love,  instead  of  proving  it  by  works  ; 
it  was  the  same  tendency  of  the  Jewish  mind  estranged  from  the  spirit 
and  life  of  religion,  which,  as  it  laid  an  undue  value  on  the  opus  opera- 
turn  of  outward  religious  acts,  so  also  on  the  opus  operatum  of  a  faith 
in  the  one  Jehovah  and  in  the  Messiah,  which  left  the  disposition  un- 
changed,! and  which  presumed  that  by  such  a  faith,  the  Jew  was  suf- 

*  We  wish  to  remark,  in  passing,  that  among  those  who  have  thought  that  they  have 
detected  a  contradiction  between  James  and  Paul  in  the  doctrine  of  justification,  is  the 
celebrated  patriarch  Cyrillus  Lucaris,  of  Constantinople,  who  was  led  to  this  opinion  by- 
reading  the  epistle.  It  also  struck  him  that  the  name  of  Christ  is  scarcely  mentioned 
above  once  or  twice,  and  then  coldly  (anzi  del  nome  di  Jesu  Christo  a  pena  fa  mmtione  una 
o  due  volte  e  freddamente) ;  that  the  mysteries  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  and  of 
redemption  are  not  treated  of,  but  only  morality  {solo  a  la  moralita  attende) ;  see  Letter  vii. 
in  Lettres  Anecdotes  de  Cyrille  Lucar.     Amsterdam,  1718,  p.  85. 

\  Baur's  authoritative  decision  (p.  686)  "  that  this  is  a  perfectly  untenable,  self-contra- 
diotory,  idea,"  cannot  at  all  move  me.  That  the  idea  of  the  opus  operatum,  according  to 
the  original  and  common  meaning  of  the  phrase,  can  only  denote  something  outward,  I 
am  well  aware ;  but  a  word  may  be  used  in  a  sense  besides  the  common, — in  an  exceptional 
and  metaphorical  sense.  So  I  have  used  the  word  here,  which  I  was  perfectly  justified  in 
doing,  to  denote  a  superficial  opinion,  which  remains  as  something  wholly  external  to  the 
soul,  and  is  not  a  matter  of  the  disposition  or  the  heart.  Now  it  is  the  same  externalising 
of  religion,  which  places  its  essence,  either  in  ceremonial  observances,  or  in  such  a  faith. 
Both  spring  from  the  same  root.  The  proofs  he  adduces  in  Note  I.  on  p.  567,  only  serve 
to  confirm  my  assertion.     Certainly  there  was  also  among  the  Jews  a  false  theory,  which 


THE    EPISTLE   OF    JAMES.  329 

ficiently  distinguished  from  the  sinful  race  of  the  Gentiles,  and  was  jus 
tified  before  God,  even  though  the  conduct  of  the  life  was  in  contradiction 
to  the  requirements  of  faith.  Thus  we  find  here  one  branch  of  that  prac- 
tical, fundamental  error  which  chiefly  prevailed  among  these  Jewish 
Christians,  whom  James  combats  in  the  whole  of  the  epistle,  even  where 
faith  is  not  the  immediate  subject  of  discourse.  It  was  the  erroneous 
tendency  which  belonged  to  those  tendencies  that  commonly  prevailed, 
among  the  great  mass  of  the  Jews,  and  which  had  found  its  way  also 
among  those  "Christians  in  whose  minds  the  gospel  had  not  effected  a 
complete  transformation,  but  whose  Jewish  spirit  had  only  connected 
itself  with  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.*  (See  above,  p.  22,  and  my 
Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  52.) 

But  as  to  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  whether  cor- 
rectly or  incorrectly  understood  and  applied,  we  cannot  suppose  its  in- 
fluence to  be  possible  in  churches  of  this  class,  and  hence  that  James, 
with  the  object  which  he  had  in  view,  should  argue  against  it,  is  utterly 
inconceivable.f  As  the  superscription  and  contents  of  his  epistle  inform 
us,  it  was  manifestly  addressed  only  to  churches  that  were  composed 

attributed  an  unfounded  value  to  a  dead  faith  in  the  one  God  in  opposition  to  idolatry,  and 
made  this  a  support  of  moral  inactivity.  This  Jewish  notion  of  faith  need  only  be  applied 
to  the  new  object,  Jesus  the  Messiah.  But  that  a  person  expressing  his  opposition  to  a 
certain  tendency,  should  thereby  be  induced  so  to  express  himself  as  if  he  meant  another 
tendency  which  agrees  only  accidentally  with  this  in  the  mode  of  expression — of  that  we 
do  not  here  find  the  only  example  in  history. 

*  That  Jewish  mode  of  thinking  which  Justin  Martyr  describes  in  Dial.  c.  Tryph.  Jud. 
fol.  370,  ed.  Colon. — wc  vfieic  dnaruTe  kavrovc  ical  ukhoi  nve<;  iip.lv  ofiocot  kcitu  tovto  (in 
this  respect  Jewish-minded  Christians),  ol  Xeyovacv,  on  nav  u/iapruhol  uai,  debv  6e  yiv6- 
CKovaiv,  ov  fif]  loyiatjTai  avroic  nvpioc  afiapriav,  (as  you,  and  others  like  to  you  in  this 
respect,  deceive  yourselves  when  you  say  that  though  you  may  be  sinners,  yet  knowing 
God,  the  Lord  will  not  impute  to  you  sin.)  That  mode  of  thinking  which  is  found  in  the 
Clementine  homilies,  according  to  which,  faith  in  one  God  (to  rrjc  novapxtac  nalbv)  has 
such  great  magical  power,  that  the  rpvxv  fJ-ovapxLufj,  even  while  living  iu  vice,  had  this 
advantage  over  idolaters,  that  it  could  not  perish,  but  through  purifying  punishments  would 
at  last  attain  to  salvation.  See  Horn.  iii.  c.  6.  This  was  the  idea  of  faith,  which,  from  an 
entirely  different  source  than  from  a  misunderstanding  of  Paul,  found  entrance  afterwards 
among  Christians  themselves,  and  to  which  a  Marcion  directly  opposed  the  Pauline  idea 
of  faith.  Against  such  perversions  Paul  warned  the  churches,  both  by  word  of  mouth  and 
in  writing,  when  he  so  impressively  charged  it  upon  them  that  their  renunciation  of  hea- 
thenism was  nugatory,  and  could  not  contribute  to  their  participation  in  the  kiugdom  of 
God,  if  they  did  not  renounce  their  former  sinful  life.  See  Gal.  v.  21.  The  "vain  words,," 
Kevol  Aoyoi,  against  which  he  warns  the  Ephesians,  v.  6. 

f  Dr.  Kern,  in  his  essay  on  the  Origin  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  in  the  Tubingen  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  Theologie,  1835,  p.  25,  on  account  of  what  is  here  asserted,  charges  me  with  a 
petitio  principii;  but  I  cannot  perceive  with  any  justice.  This  charge  could  only  be 
brought  against  me  if  I  had  assumed,  without  evidence,  that  this  epistle  was  addressed  to 
an  unmixed  church;  or  if  I  had  passed  altogether  unnoticed  the  possible  case  which  Kern 
considers  as  the  actual  (though  ho  himself  has  abandoned  it  lately  in  the  Introduction  to 
his  Commentary  on  this  Epistle),  that  it  was  forged  by  a  Jewish  Christian  in  James's 
name,  in  order  to  controvert  the  Pauline  doctrinal  views  which  prevailed  among  the  Gen- 
tile churchea 


330  THE   EPISTLE   OF  JAMES. 

entirely  of  Jewish  Christians.  But  such  persons  were  least  of  all  dis- 
posed to  attach  themselves  particularly  to  Paul,  and  least  of  all  disposed 
and  fitted  to  agree  to  the  Pauline  doctrine,  which  presented  the  most 
direct  opposition  to  their  customary  mode  of  thinking.  It  was  pre- 
cisely from  persons  of  this  stamp  that  the  intemperate,  fanatical  outcry 
was  raised  against  this  form  of  Christian  doctrine,  as  if  hy  depending 
on  grace,  men  were  made  secure  in  sin,  or  that  they  were  justified  in 
doing  evil  that  good  might  come,  Rom.  hi.  8.  In  an  entirely  different 
quarter,  from  an  Hellenic  (gnostic)  Antinomianism,  which  was  also  Anti- 
Judaism,  arose  at  a  later  period  an  erroneous,  practically  destructive  ap- 
propriation and  application  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification,  such 
as  Paul  himself  thought  it  needful  to  guard  against  by  anticipation ; 
Rom.  vi.  1 ;  Gal.  v.  13.  And  this  later  erroneous  application  of  the  idea 
of  faith,  which  tended  likewise  to  the  injury  of  practical  Christianity, 
proceeded  from  an  entirely  different  exposition  of  this  idea  than  that 
presented  by  the  one-sided  direction  of  the  Jewish  spirit.  It  manifested 
itself  rather  as  an  Oriental  Hellenic,  than  as  a  Jewish,  spirit;  it  was  not 
the  abstract  idea  of  faith,  but  a  one-sided  contemplative,  or  idealising, 
tendency,  which  deviated  from  the  conception  of  faith  as  an  animating 
principle  of  the  will  and  a  practical  determination  of  the  life. 

We  do  not  wish  to  deny  that  even  in  churches  composed  of  Jewish 
Christians,  and  of  Jewish-Christian  views,  there  might  be  individuals 
who  had  been  influenced  by  the  Pauline  doctrine;  and  we  grant  it  as 
possible,  that  James,  by  what  he  had  heard  of  the  expressions  of  indi- 
viduals who  had  been  thus  influenced,  had  been  induced  to  combat  such 
a  tendency  in  his  epistle.  And  Ave  should  be  disposed  thus  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  the  epistle,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  it  was  directed 
against  various  theoretical  and  practical  errors  springing  out  of  different 
roots.  But  this  was  not  the  case.  It  is  evident  from  what  has  been 
said,  that  all  the  evil  which  is  combated  in  this  epistle  must  be  referred 
to  one  root,  that  of  the  common  Jewish  spirit  which  had  received  into 
itself  the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  Hence  we  shall  be  induced,  if 
it  be  possible,  to  regard  the  individual  error,  not  as  something  isolated, 
as  we  should  be  obliged  to  do  if  we  deduced  it  from  the  Pauline  element, 
but  rather  as  connected  with  that  common  fundamental  tendency. 

But  further,  we  must  here  consider  the  position  of  James  in  relation 
to  Paul.  If  we  believed  ourselves  justified  in  admitting  an  open  con- 
trariety between  them,  we  might  suppose  that  James,  in  consequence  of 
his  peculiar  course  of  development,  was  incapable  of  entering  into  the 
peculiar  Pauline  form  of  doctrine,  and  had  combated  it  through  his  own 
misconcejDtion  of  it,  or  as  a  misconception  of  others  that  stood  opposed 
to  him.  But  we  have  shown  that  we  can  by  no  means  be  led  to  presup- 
pose such  a  hostile  relation  between  James  and  Paul,  although  there  was 
a  party  named  after  the  former  apostle,  who  set  themselves  in  opposition 
to  Paul,  as  indeed  there  was  a  Pauline  party,  who  formed  themselves  into 
an  opposition  not  sanctioned  by  Paul  himself.     According  to  this  suppo- 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES.  *      331 

sition  we  cannot  admit  that  James  combated  either  the  doctrine  of  Paul 
itself,  or  a  misunderstood  version  and  application  of  it,  without,  at  the 
same  time,  distinguishing  the  correct  view  of  it,  and  guarding  himself 
against  the  appearance  of  contradicting  the  Apostle  Paul,  especially  since 
this  appearance  might  so  easily  arise  among  Jewish-Christian  churches  ; 
or  else  we  should  be  obliged  to  suppose  that  James  had  controverted  that 
dogmatic  phraseology  without  being  aware  of  its  connexion  with  Paul's 
system,  which  we  cannot  consider  as  in  the  least  degree  probable. 

Thus  far  we'have  taken  for  granted  that  this  epistle  Avas  the  produc- 
tion of  him  who  names  himself  in  it  as  its  author.  But  very  recently 
this  has  been  disputed  both  on  external  and  internal  grounds.*  Several 
weighty  authorities  have  favored  the  opinion  that  the  epistle  was  forged 
in  James's  name,  in  order  to  promote  a  certain  class  of  religious 
opinious.f  The  design  might  have  been  to  controvert  the  Pauline  doc- 
trine of  Justification,  to  set  the  authority  of  James  against  Paul,  and 
this  design  might  well  suit  the  one-sided  tendency  of  a  Jewish  Christian. 
But  such  a  person  would  not  only  have  expressed  himself  in  a  more  de- 
cided manner  than  that  James,  of  whose  reputation  he  wished  to  avail 
himself;  but  he  would  have  pointed  out  by  name  the  individual,  Paul, 
against  whom  he  directed  his  attack,  and  would  have  expressed  in 
stronger  terms,  his  opposition  to  his  doctrine.  The  subordinate  place 
which  in  this  case  the  controversy  with  the  Pauline  doctrine  occupies  in 
relation  to  the  whole  of  the  epistle,  certainly  does  not  agree  with  this 
hypothesis. 

*  The  external  grounds  against  (he  genuineness  of  this  epistle,  though  the  Peschito  is 
in  favor  of  it,  would  have  greater  weight,  if  the  doubts  that  arose  in  the  first  centuries  as 
to  acknowledging  it,  might  not  be  so  easily  explained  from  its  spreading  among  Jewish- 
Christian  churches  (a  circumstance  suited  to  excite  in  many  minds  a  prejudice  against 
it)  an  argument  against  Paul's  doctrine  which  it  was  believed  to  contain;  to  which  must  be 
added  the  indistinct  designation  of  the  author  at  the  beginning  of  the  epistle. 

f  "We  are  willing  to  submit  to  the  charge  of  narrow-mindedness  in  declaring  ourselves 
against  the  assertion  so  unceremoniously  made  and  so  often  repeated,  that  such  a  literary 
fiction  could  have  been  nothing  offensive  to  the  principles  of  the  earlier  Christian  period. 
"We  have  no  reason  for  supposing  that  any  one,  after  the  manner  of  the  rhetoricians,  would 
have  said  by  another  what  he  could  himself  in  some  way  have  said,  or  that  ho  would  at- 
tribute to  another  what  he  wished  specially  to  impress  on  the  minds  of  his  contemporaries. 
Such  fictions  must  ever  have  been  intended  to  deceive;  they  were  designed  to  facilitate  the 
admission  of  what  was  said  by  the  appropriated  authority  of  another.  There  was  a  so-called 
pious  fraud,  a  manifest  lie,  which  could  find- its  justification  in  the  design  of  spreading 
certain  truths.  There  was  doubtless  a  peculiar  view  to  which  such  a  principle  answered; 
but  that  the  principle  generally  prevailed  appears  to  me  an  arbitrary  assumption.  We  ought 
carefully  to  guard  against  supposing  that  to  have  generally  prevailed  which  was  only  a 
peculiarity  of  individual  tendencies  of  spirit.  There  was  a  one-sided,  theoretic,  speculative 
spirit  from  which  lax  principles  respecting  veracity  proceeded,  as  we  have  remarked  in 
Plato.  It  was  closely  connected  with  that  aristocraticistn  of  antiquity,  first  overturned  by 
the  power  of  tho  gospel,  which  treated  the  mass  of  the  people  as  unsusceptible  of  pure 
truth  in  religion,  and  hence  justified  the  use  of  falsehood  to  serve  as  leading-strings  for  the 
multitude,  -rroTiloi.  As  the  reaction  of  earlier  conceptions,  we  find  this  view  in  parlies  of 
kindred  tendencies,  such  as  the  Alexandrian  Jews,  the  Gnostics,  the  Platonising  Alexan  • 


332     '  THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES. 

Others  are  disposed  to  find  in  this  epistle  a  refined  Ebionitism,*  in 
which  the  Jewish  element  had  lost  much  of  its  original  coarseness,  al- 
though the  practical  basis  which  distinguished  its  view  from  the  Pauline, 
remained  the  same.  The  origination  of  the  epistle  at  a  later  period  is 
supposed  to  be  indicated  by  the  influences  which  the  Pauline  spirit  had 
already  exerted  on  the  elements  that  were  opposed  to  it.  Thus  the  soft- 
ened Judaism,  which  could  not  altogether  escape  the  influence  of  the 
Pauline  ideas,  must  contain  the  certain  mark  of  a  later,  more  advanced 
Christian  development.  In  our  inquiries  on  this  subject,  all  depends  on 
how  we  view  the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  developing  process  of  Chris- 
tianity. If  persons  regard  Christ  only  as  the  individual  who  gave  the 
impulse  to  a  new  development,  which,  through  a  Paul,  and  the  spirit  ex- 
hibited in  the  Gospel  of  John,  was  carried  forward  beyond  his  personal 
efforts,  to  them  such  a  view  may  commend  itself.  And  so  James  may 
appear  as  the  rigid  Ebionite,  who  could  not  possibly  have  written  such 
an  epistle,  and  so  it  may  appear  necessary  to  invent  such  an  intermediate 
step  for  the  Ebionitism,  softened  and  spiritualized  by  the  progressive  in- 
fluence of  the  movement  set  a-going  by  Paul.  To  us  the  relation  of 
Christ  to  Christianity  appears  altogether  different,  since  we  must  regard 
the  revelation  through  Christ  as  the  original  and  perfect  one,  from  which 
the  whole  developing  process  of  the  apostolic  doctrine  is  to  be  derived. 
We  shall  refer  the  elements  akin  to  the  Pauline  doctrine  in  James,  not  to 
Paul,  but  to  the  same  original  source  from  which  Paul  derived  them,  that 
is,  to  Christ  himself.  The  fulfilment  of  the  law  in  the  gospel,  which  is 
exhibited  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  reappears  in  the  conception  of 
Christianity  peculiar  to  James,  and  we  cannot  fail  to  notice  several  cor- 
respondences with  the  sayings  of  Christ.  Although  James  and  Paul  are 
representatives  of  the  two  opposite  extremes  in  the  development  of  the 
Christian  doctrine,  yet  in  virtue  of  their  common  relation  to  the  original 
source  of  revelation  in  Christ,  a  relationship  to  one  another  and  a  higher 
unity  must  result  between  them.  If  we  know  the  real  Christ,  we  shall 
not  be  disposed  to  believe  that  James,  who  had  received  unto  himself  the 
whole  personal  impression  of  the  Saviour,  could  retain  the  common  Jew- 
ish narrow-mindedness.  As  we  find  in  his  epistle  that  image  of  James 
which  all  the  historical  data  would  lead  us  to  frame,  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  no  trace  is  to  be  found  in  it  of  its  being  composed  in  post-apostolic 
times, — nothing,  especially,  which  points  to  a  later  form  of  Ebionitism. 
Th§  manner,  also,  in  which  the  nearness  of  Christ's  second  advent  is 

driaa  fathers.  But  from  the  first,  a  sounder  practical  Christian  spirit  combated  this  error, 
as  we  see  in  the  instances  of  Justin  Martyr,  Irenasus,  and  Tertullian.  The  anti-gnostic 
tendency  was  also  zealous  for  strict  veracity.  Now  a  similar  practical  tendency  distin- 
guishes this  epistle,  in  which  I  can  nowhere  find  an  Ebionitish  anti-Pauline  point  of  view. 
This  spirit  of  strict  veracity  is  shown  in  what  is  said  respecting  swearing.  The  epistle, 
indeed,  wears  altogether  a  different  character  from  the  Clementines,  which  show  a  very 
decided  party  tendency  and  party  bias. 

*  The  view  developed  by  Baur  and  Sch^egler. 


TIIE   EPISTLE    OP   JAMES.  333 

spoken  of,  suits  best  the  apostolic  age.  Had  the  epistle  been  forged  in 
favor  of  any  of  the  party  interests  of  the  day,  we  should  have  met  with 
references  to  the  manifold  contrarieties  of  Christian  development  then 
existing,  as,  for  instance,  those  of  the  Jewish  Christians  and  Gentile 
Christians,  the  Paulinian  and  anti-Paulinian  systems.  But  no  one,  except 
he  belongs  to  the  class  who  can  find  everything  everywhere,  can  detect  in 
this  epistle  any  of  all  these  and  similar  references  to  the  contrarieties  of  that 
age,  excepting  only  the  possible  allusion  to  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  faith. 
But  even  then,  we  could  hardly  expect  that  the  anti-Pauline  tendencies  of 
the  second  century  would  shew  themselves  so  feebly  as  they  do,  and  in  a 
way  so  unlike  that  of  the  Clementines  in  which  they  everywhere  prevail. 

But  is  this  allusion  really  so  very  evident  ?  Let  us  recollect  that  the 
Pauline  phraseology  formed  itself  from  Judaism,  from  the  Jewish-Greek 
diction — that  it  by  no  means  created  purely  new  modes  of  expression,* 
but  often  only  appropriated  the  ancient  Jewish  terms,  employed  them  in 
new  combinations,  applied  them  to  new  contrasts,  and  animated  them 
with  a  new  spirit.  Thus  neither  the  term  "justification  "  in  reference  to 
God,  nor  the  term  "  faith,"  was  entirely  new  ;  but  both  these  terms  and 
the  ideas  indicated  by  them  (and  indeed,  in  reference  to  the  first,  the  same 
idea  the  existence  of  which  among  the  Jews  Paul  must  have  assumed  in 
arguing  with  his  Jewish  opponents)  had  been  long  familiar  to  the  Jews. 
The  example  likewise  of  Abraham  as  a  hero  in  faith  must  have  been 
obvious  to  every  Jew,  and  the  example  of  Rahab  (which  is  adduced  only 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — an  epistle  neither  composed  by  Paul  nor 
containing  the  peculiarly  Pauline  doctrinal  statement  of  justifying  faith), 
since  it  proved  the  benefit  of  the  monotheistic  faith  to  a  Gentile  of  im- 
pure life,  must  have  especially  commended  itself  to  the  Jews  who  were 
disposed  to  extol  the  importance  of  faith  in  Jehovah.f 

Let  us  now  look  in  the  Epistle  itself  for  the  marks  of  the  time  in 
which  it  was  written,  and  of  the  churches  to  which  it  was  addressed. 
It  is  remarkable  that,  according  to  its  superscription,  it  is  addressed  only 
to  the  Jews  of  the  twelve  tribes  who  lived  in  the  dispersion,  and  yet  it 
is  manifestly  addressed  to  Christians.  Still  this  may  be  very  well  ex- 
plained if  we  consider  the  view  of  James,  such  as  it  is  shown  to  be  by 
the  whole  of  the  epistle.  He  considers  the  acknowledgment  of  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  as  essentially  belonging  to  genuine  Judaism,  believers 
in  Jesus  as  the  only  genuine  Jews,  Christianity  as  perfected  Judaism,  by 

*  On  the  manner  in  which  Paul  employed  phrases  which  were  already  in  use  among 
Jewish  theologians,  compare  Dr.  Roeth's  work,  De  Epistola  ad  Eebroeos,  p.  121,  &c,  though 
I  cannot  agree  with  the  author  in  what  he  attempts  to  prove ;  for  in  the  use  which  Paul 
makes  of  an  existing  form  of  dogmatic  expression,  he  forms  the  most  decided  contrast  to 
the  Jewish  meaning.  But  it  appears  from  this,  how  James,  proceeding  from  the  Jewish 
point  of  view,  without  any  reference  to  the  Pauline  doctrine,  would  be  led  to, the  choice 
of  such  expressions. 

f  Thus  it  appears  to  me  that  what  Dr.  De  "Wette  says  in  the  Stvdien  und  Xritiken, 
1830,  p.  349,  in  order  to  point  out  an  intentional  opposition  of  James  to  Paul,  is  nullified. 


334  THE   EPISTLE   OP   JAMES. 

which  the  Law  had  attained  its  completion.  And  it  is  not  impossible 
that,  although  he  addressed  himself  especially  to  Christians,  he  also  had 
in  his  thoughts  the  Jewish  readers  into  whose  hands  the  epistle  might 
fall,  as  Christians  lived  among  the  Jews  without  any  marked  separation. 
From  the  mention  of  their  descent  from  the  twelve  tribes,  we  may  infer 
that  these  churches  consisted  purely  of  Jewish  Christians,  or  that  James, 
who  considered  himself  peculiarly  the  apostle  of  the  Jews,  addressed 
only  the  Jewish  part  of  the  church.  Yet  as  no  notice  is  taken  of  the 
relation  of  Jewish  to  Gentile  Christians,  it  is  by  far  the  most  probable 
opinion  that  these  churches  consisted  entirely  of  the  former.  Partly  from 
the  peculiar  views  of  James,  and  partly  from  the  peculiar  situation  of 
these  churches  which  had  retained  all  the  Jewish  forms,  we  may  account 
for  the  use  of  the  ancient  Jewish  name  "  synagogue,"  ovvayuyi],  instead 
of  the  peculiar  Christian  term  "  church,"  eKK^ala,  as  the  designation  of 
the  meeting  of  the  community  of  believers.*  Such  churches  might  exist 
during  the  later  apostolic  age  in  the  inland  parts  of  Asia,  perhaps  in  Syria. 
But  if  the  epistle  was  addressed  to  churches  in  these  parts,  it  appears 
strange  that  James,  to  whom  the  Aramaic  must  have  been  much  more 
familiar  than  the  Greek,  (although  it  was  not  impossible  that  he  hnd  so  far 
learnt  the  Greek  as  to  be  able  to  write  an  epistle  in  it,f )  should  have  made 
use  of  the  latter  language.  "We  must  therefore  conclude,  that  this  point 
was  determined  by  a  regard  to  the  wants  of  his  readers,  and  that  part  of 
them  at  least  belonged  to  the  Hellenists.  This  being  assumed,  we  must 
fix  the  date  of  the  epistle  at  a  time  preceding  the  separate  formation  of 
Gentile  Christian  churches,  before  the  relation  of  Gentiles  and  Jews  to 
one  another  in  the  Christian  church  had  been  brought  under  discussion,J 
the  period  of  the  first  spread  of  Christianity  in  Syria,  Cilicia,  and  the 
adjacent  regions.§ 

These  churches  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  the  poor,||  (though 

*  Our  knowledge  of  the  spread  of  Christianity  at  this  period,  is  indeed  far  too  defective 
to  dogmatise  with  Kern  on  this  point. 

f  It  is  possible  also  that  some  one  served  him  as  interpreter. 

%  The  view  which  Dr.  Schneckenburger  has  acutely  developed,  and  defended  in  hia 
valuable  Beitrage  zur  Einleitung  irts  Neue  Testament,  Stuttgart,  1832,  and  in  his  Annotatio 
ad  Epistolam  Jacdbi.  He  has  expressed  his  agreement,  respecting  the  object  of  the  polem- 
ical portion  of  tins  epistle,  with  the  views  I  have  developed  in  this  work,  and  in  my  earlier 
occasional  writings.  See  his  Essays  on  this  subject  in  Steudel's  Tubinger  Zeitschrift  fur 
TJieologie,  1829  and  1830,  part  ii. 

§  An  allusion  to  the  use  of  the  name  "  Christians  "  has  been  erroneously  supposed  in 
James  ii.  7,  and  hence  an  attempt  to  fix  the  date  of  the  epistle.  By  "worthy  name," 
icahbv  ovofia,  we  may  most  probably  understand  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  this  is  the  simplest 
explanation,  since  the  words  will  be  most  naturally  applied  to  the  invocation  of  the  name 
of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  to  whom  believers  were  consecrated  at  baptism,  the  baptism 
"into  the  name  of  Jesus,"  elg  rb  bvo/ia  tov  'Irioov.  See  Schneckenburger's  Commentary 
on  the  passage. 

||  According  to  the  views  which  Kern  formerly  presented,  the  author  of  this  epistle,  in 
an  Ebionitish  manner,  marked  the  genuine  Christians,  that  is,  in  his  opinion  the  Jewish 
Christians,  as  the  poor,  and  the  Gentile  Christians  as  the  rich,  whom  he  would  not  ac- 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES.  335 

some  individuals  among  them  were  rich,)*  and  they  were  in  various  ways 
oppressed  by  the  wealthy  and  prominent  Jews.f  Certainly  these 
churches  were  so  constituted,  that,  in  many  cases,  their  Christianity 
consisted  only  in  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  of 
single  moral  precepts  of  his,  which  they  considered  as  the  perfecting  of 
the  law.  Since  they  were  far  from  recognising  and  appropriating  the 
real  essence  of  Christianity,  they  resembled  the  great  mass  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  in  the  predominance  of  a  carnal  mind,  and  the  prevalence  of 
worldly  lusts, -contention,  and  zealotism.  Accordingly,  we  must  either 
assume  that  Christianity  among  them  was  still  novel,  and  had  not  yet 
penetrated  the  life,  as  from  the  beginning  (see  above,  p.  22),  there  were 
many  among  the  Jews,  who,  carried  away  by  the  impression  which  the 
extraordinary  operations  of  the  apostles  had  made  upon  them,  and  at- 
tracted by  the  hope  that  Jesus  would  soon  return,  and  establish  his  king- 
dom on  earth,  the  happiness  of  which  they  depicted  agreeably  to  their 
own  inclinations,  in  such  a  state  of  mind  and  with  such  expectations, 
made  a  profession  of  Christianity,  without  having  experienced  any  essen- 
tial change  of  character — or  we  must  suppose,  that  these  churches  had 
sunk  into  a  state  of  degeneracy  from  higher  attainments  in  the  Christian 
life.  In  the  constitution  of  these  churches  there  was  this  peculiarity, 
that  as  the  direction  of  the  office  of  teaching  had  not  been  committed  to 
the  presbyters,  but  only  the  outward  management  of  church  affairs, 
many  members  of  the  community  came  forward  as  teachers,  while,  as 
yet,  there  was  no  special  office  of  teacher;  (see  above,  pp.  34,  145.) 
Hence  James  deemed  it  needful  to  admonish  them,  that  too  many  ought 
not  to  obtrude  themselves  as  teachers  ;  that  none  ought  too  inconsider- 
ately to  take  up  speaking  in  their  public  meetings,  but  that  each  should 

Knowledge  to  be  genuine  Christians.  But  the  condition  of  the  Christian  churches  among 
the  Gentiles  generally  in  the  first  age,  certainly  will  not  allow  us  to  suppose,  that  it  would 
occur  to  any  one  to  impose  this  name  upon  them,  and  in  every  point  of  view  this  supposi- 
tion appears  to  be  entirely  groundless. 

*  James  i.  10. 

\  The  passage  in  James  ii.  7,  is  referred  most  naturally  to  the  blaspheming  of  Jesus  by 
the  enemies  of  Christianity,  although  the  immediately  preceding  context  relates  not  to 
religious  persecutions,  but  to  oppressions  and  extortions  of  a  different  kind.  Compare  v.  4. 
It  is  by  no  means  evident,  that  by  the  "  rich"  in  this  epistle  we  are  always  to  understand 
the  same  members  of  the  Christian  community.  The  author  may  refer  partly  to  the  rich 
among  the  Jews,  who  were  averse  to  Christianity,  partly  to  the  rich  among  the  Chris- 
tians, who  formed  a  very  small  minority.  From  the  contrast  in  i.  9,  10,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  by  the  rich  in  the  latter  verse  only  Christians  are  intended.  By  those  of  low 
degree  who  were  to  rejoice  in  being  exalted,  he  could  indeed  mean  only  Christians ;  but 
among  the  rich,  he  might  include  those  wealthy  Jews,  who  by  their  entire  devotedness  to 
earthly  objects  were  prevented  from  becoming  Christians.  These  persons  should  learn  the 
nothingness  of  earthly  possessions,  which  they  had  hitherto  made  their  highest  good, 
should  humble  themselves,  and  in  this  self-humiliation  find  their  true  glory;  for  with  the 
nothingness  of  earthly  things  they  would  learn  the  truly  highest  good, — the  true  dignity 
or  elevation  imparted  by  the  Messiah.  The  directions  thus  given  were  equivalent  to  a 
summons  tn  become  Christiaus. 


336  THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES. 

recollect  the  responsibility  he  incurred  by  such  a  procedure ;   James 
i.  19;   hi.  1,  2. 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  James  and  the  mode  of  its  exhibition  in  this 
epistle,  we  find  nothing  whatever  which  stands  in  contradiction  to  the 
more  fully  developed  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  shall  show 
when  we  come  to  treat  of  doctrine  ;  and  the  Christian  ideas  actually  pre- 
sented in  this  epistle  point  to  the  organic  connection  of  the  whole  Chris- 
tian system.  But  the  contents  of  these  Christian  ideas  are  not  evolved 
and  applied  to  particulars  ;  what  is  purely  Christian  is  more  insulated ; 
reference  to  Christ  is  not  so  predominant  and  all-penetrating  as  in  the 
other  epistles.  Reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  though  conjoined  with 
Christian  views,  predominates.  For  the  explanation  of  this  phenomenon, 
to  allege  the  peculiar  views  of  the  persons  addressed  is  not  sufficient,  for 
a  Paul,  a  John,  or  a  Peter  would  certainly  have  written  to  them  in  a  very 
different  strain  ;  we  must  rather  seek  the  explanation  in  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  writer  himself.  We  might  hence  infer  (with  Schnecken- 
burger)  that  James  wrote  this  epistle  at  a  time  when  Christianity  had 
not  thoroughly  penetrated  his  spiritual  life,  during  the  earliest  period  of 
his  Christian  development;  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  we  are 
justified  in  drawing  such  a  conclusion,  for  no  proof  can  be  given  that  he 
enlarged  his  doctrinal  views  at  a  later  period.  It  is  possible  that  he  re- 
mained confined  in  this  imperfect  form  of  doctrinal  development,  although 
his  heart  was  penetrated  by  love  to  God  and  to  Jesus  the  Messiah.  He 
still  maintained  the  character  which  belonged  to  him  from  his  individual 
position  as  a  teacher  of  the  Jews,  as  the  guide  of  his  countrymen  in 
passing  over  from  the  Old  to  the  New  Testament.  True  it  is,  that  much 
would  be  wanting  to  the  church  for  the  completeness  of  Christian  know 
ledge,  if  the  statement  of  Christian  doctrine  by  James  did  not  find  its 
complement  in  the  representations  of  the  other  apostles ;  but  in  con 
nexion  with  their  teachings  it  forms  an  important  contribution  to  the 
entire  conception  and  development  of  Christian  truth,  and  furnishes  all 
that  can  be  expected  from  one  occupying  such  a  position.* 

*  As  the  ultra-Paulinism  of  the  second  century  stood  quite  aloof  from  James,  so  in  the 
hostility  shown  to  the  Epistle  of  James  we  recognise  the  one-sidedness  of  the  Lutheran 
element.  Although  the  Epistle  of  James  occupies  a  subordinate  place  in  the  development 
of  Christian  truth,  compared  with  the  Pauline  epistles,  yet  it  is  important  for  checking 
many  a  one-sided  exaggeration  to  which  the  Pauline  element,  if  made  unduly  prominent, 
might  be  carried.  Thus  its  position  in  the  Canon  has  a  peculiar  propriety.  Its  importance 
in  a  practical  view  is  beautifully  exhibited  by  the  excellent  Thomas  Arnold  in  the 
volume  of  his  Sermons  entitled  Christian  Life,  Us  Hopes,  its  Fears,  and  its  Close,  Sermon 
IV.,  on  Christian  Conviction,  p.  51 : — "But  for  those  who  complain  that  no  preaching  but 
that  of  the  very  gospel  itself  is  becoming  a  Christian  minister,  or  useful  to  Christian  people, 
I  would  refer  them  for  an  answer  not  only  to  some  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which,  on  their  notion,  we  might  almost  strike  out  of  our  Bibles,  but  to  a  complete  portion 
of  the  New  Testament  itself—to  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  Lord's  brother.  That  epistle 
undoubtedly  supposes  that  they  who  were  to  read  it  had  received  other  teaching  before- 
hand ;  that  the  gospel  in  the  strict  sense  had  been  already  preached  to  them.  But  in 
itself  it  does  not  in  that  high  sense  preach  the  gospel ;  it  dwells  rather  from  beginning  tc 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   JAMES.  337 

It  was  exactly  this  form  of  doctrine  that  secured  for  James  a  long  and 
undisturbed  ministration  among  the  Jews,  and  many  were  led  by  his 
influence  to  faith  in  Christ ;  but  this  excited  so  much  the  more  the  hatred 
of  the  basest  among  the  party-leaders  of  the  Jewish  people,  who.  sought 
for  an  opportunity  to  sacrifice  him  to  their  rage.  One  of  the  most  im- 
petuous among  them,  the  high  priest  Ananus,  who  was  disposed  to  all 
the  violent  acts  of  party  hatred,  availed  himself  for  this  purpose  of  the 
interval  between  the  departure  of  the  Roman  procurator  Felix,  and  the 
arrival  of  his -successor  Albinus,  about  the  year  02.  He  caused  James, 
with  some  other  Christians,  to  be  condemned  to  death  by  the  Sanhedrim, 
as  a  violator  of  the  law,  and  he  was  stoned.*     But  the  better  disposed 

end  on  such  points  of  Christian  duty  as  are  required  to  perfect  the  man  of  God  unto  all 
good  works,  points  which  may  be  called  properly  moral.  Now  that  some  Christian 
preaching,  in  particular  circumstances,  should  follow  the  model  of  St..  James's  Epistle, 
appears  to  me  no  just  matter  of  blame.  But  as  St.  James's  Epistle  is  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment only  one  out  of  many,  and  as  he  himself  must  often  and  earnestly  have  preached  the 
gospel  in  the  more  strict  sense,  although  he  did  not  do  it  in  this  one  epistle,  so  should 
we,  both  preachers  and  hearers,  greatly  deceive  and  hurt  ourselves  if  we  forget  that  the 
proper  preaching  of  the  gospel  and  the  believing  it  is  our  one  great  business,  without 
which,  and  except  as  founded  upon  it  and  taking  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  it  for 
granted,  all  other  preaching  is  to  Christians  worse  than  unprofitable,  not  edifying  their 
souls,  but  rather  subverting  them."  (See  also  Dr.  Arnold's  Sermons  on  the  Interpretation 
of  Scripture,  Serm.  xxxiii.  and  xxxiv. — Tr.) 

*  We  here  follow  the  account  of  Josephus,  Antiq.  xx.  9,  which  certainly  is  more 
credible  than  the  legendary  narrative  of  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius  ii.  23.  How  can  it  be 
supposed  that  the  heads  of  the  Pharisaic  party  would  have  been  foolish  enough  to  demand 
of  James,  and  to  believe  him  capable  of  bearing,  a  public  testimony  against  Christianity  ? 
Nor  can  I  be  induced  by  what  Credner  has  said  in  his  Einleitung,  &c,  p.  581,  in  which 
Rothe  and  Kern  (see  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  James,  published  in  1838,  p.  341) 
agree  with  him,  to  give  up  the  opinion  I  have  here  expressed.  It  would  place  the  ques- 
tion on  a  different  footing,  if  the  interpolation  of  the  passage  in  Josephus  could  be  really 
proved.  In  that  case,  we  must  admit,  that  although  the  history  of  the  martyrdom  of 
James  was  garnished  after  an  Ebionitish  legend,  yet  the  historical  truth  is  to  be  dis- 
cerned lying  at  its  basis.  But  this  interpolation  does  not  appear  to  me  proved.  The 
words  of  Josephus,  xx.  c.  9,  §  1,  in  which  we  include  in  brackets  what  is  considered  sus- 
picious by  Credner  and  others,  are  as  follows :  (he  is  here  speaking  of  the  hiyh  priest 
Ananus) :  Kadi&t  ovvidpiov  kqituv  nal  napayaydv  etc  avrb  [rbv  u6eX<pbv  '1-qoov  tov  ~Aeyo- 
fiivov  XpiaTov,  'lunufloc  bvofia  avru>,  ko.i\  Tivac  [enrpovf]  uc  TTapavo/jTfadvTuv  KaTrjyopiav 
■xocTjodfiEvoc  ■napedwice  Aevodqao/ievovg'  booi  6i  idoicovv  tTTiECKearaToi  tuv  narcl  rfjv  tt6?.iv 
elvai,  nai  tu  irepi  roilc  vbfiovc  duptfiric,  (iapeuc  fiveynav  InX  tovtq.  (He  caused  a  session 
of  the  council  of  the  judges  and  bringing  into  it  (the  brother  of  Jesus,  the  so-called 
Christ, — his  name  was  James — and)  certain  (others)  whom  he  charged  with  violation  of 
the  law,  he  delivered  them  up  to  be  stoned  ;  but  all  the  men  of  probity  in  the  city,  and 
those  most  scrupulous  in  things  pertaining  to  the  law,  were  sorely  displeased  at  this ) 
Credner  considers  the  clauses  I  have  marked,  as  the  interpolation  of  a  Christian,  because 
Josephus  as  a  Jew  would  not  have  so  emphatically  prefixed  the  epithet  "  brother,"  udeA- 
(puv,  &c,  but  rather  have  placed  first  the  proper  name,  and  because  he  must  rather  have 
called  James  "  the  just,"  rbv  SUatov,  particularly  as  he  has  left  his  readers  in  almost  total 
darkness  as  to  the  meaning  of  his  whole  designation  of  him.  But  since  James  might  be  best 
known  by  precisely  that  designation,  which  gave  him  the  greatest  importance  whether  in  a 
good  or  a  bad  sense,  according  to  the  views  of  those  who  employed  it,  since  Jesus  who  was 


338  THE   APOSTLE   PETER. 

among  the  Jews  were  greatly  dissatisfied  with  this  proceeding,  and 
Ananus,  on  account  of  it,  was  accused  to  the  new  governor,  for  which 
there  was  sufficient  reason,  as  he  had  manifestly  exceeded  the  limits  of 
the  power  guaranteed  to  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  by  the  Roman  law.  See 
above,  p.  56. 


CHAPTER     II. 


THE   APOSTLE   PETER. 


From  James  we  now  proceed  to  the  apostle  Peter,  who,  as  appears 
from  the  course  of  historical  development  already  traced,  forms  a  con- 
necting link  between  Paul  and  James,  the  two  who  with  oneness  of 
Spirit  formed  the  most  direct  contrast  to  each  other  in  their  spheres  of 
action  and  tendencies.  We  must  here  glance  at  the  earlier  elements 
entering  into  the  formation  of  the  character  of  Peter. 

Simon  was  the  son  of  Jonas,  a  fisherman  in  the  town  of  Bethsaida,  on 
the  western  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Gennesareth  in  Galilee.  The  interest 
universally  excited  in  this  region  respecting  the  appearance  of  the  Mes- 
siah, which  seized  with  peculiar  force  the  ardent  minds  of  the  young,  led 
him,  among  others,  to  that  divinely  enlightened  man  John  the  Baptist, 
who  was  called  to  prepare  the  way  for  that  event.  His  brother  Andrew, 
who  had  first  recognised  the  Messiah  in  Jesus,  imparted  to  him  the  glo- 
rious discovery.  When  the  Lord  saw  him,  he  perceived,  with  his  divine- 
human  glance,  what  was  in  him,  and  he  gave  him  the  surname  of  the 
Rock-man,  Cephas,  Peter.     This  surname,  like  others  which  Christ  gave 

considered  to  be  the  Christ  might  be  presumed  to  be  known  under  that  title,  both  among 
Gentile  and  Jewish  readers,  we  have  reason  for  thinking  that  the  person  of  the  brother  of 
Jesus  first  presented  itself  to  Josephus,  and  he  mentioned  this  before  adding  the  designa- 
tion of  the  proper  name.  "When  those  persons  are  mentioned  who  had  been  accused  as 
violaters  of  the  law,  and  whose  condemnation  had  been  blamed  by  the  most  devout  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  this  would  certainly  lead  us  to  think  of  the  Christians  who  strictly 
observed  the  Mosaic  law,  and  above  all,  we  should  refer  this  to  James.  When  Christians 
were  persecuted  as  Christians,  or  as  opponents  of  the  prevalent  corruptions,  the  persecu- 
tion would  especially  affect  James,  who  had  the  greatest  influence  among  the  Jews,  and 
was  the  firmest  pillar  of  the  Christian  community.  It  is  therefore  in  itself  probable,  that 
the  persecution  excited  by  the  high  priest  would  fall  particularly  on  James.  And  if  a 
Christian  had  interpolated  this  passage,  he  would  hardly  have  satisfied  himself  with  only 
foisting  in  these  words,  as  a  comparison  with  the  interpolation  of  the  other  passage  relating 
to  Jesus  himself,  will  convince  us  still  more.  In  reference  to  the  incredibility  of  such  tra- 
ditions as  those  of  Hegesippus  respecting  the  martyrdom  of  James,  a  comparison  with  the 
tales  reported  by  Papias  about  the  death  of  Judas  Iscariot  will  serve  for  a  proof.  Per- 
haps the  image  of  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  suggested  to  the  Ebionites  their  method  of 
forming  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  James. 


THE  APOSTLE    PETEK.  339 

his  disciples,  may  be  taken  in  a  twofold  point  of  view.  The  principa' 
point  of  view  which,  without  doubt,  the  Redeemer  had  in  the  imposition 
of  the  name,  related  to  what  Simon  would  become  in  and  for  the  service 
of  the  gospel.  But  as  the  influences  of  transforming  grace,  always  attach- 
ing themselves  to  the  constitutional  character  of  an  individual,  purify  and 
ennoble  it,  so  in  this  instance,  what  Peter  was  to  become  by  the  power 
of  the  divine  life,  was  in  a  measure  determined  by  his  natural  peculiari- 
ties. Prompt  and  firm  in  his  grasp,  his  specially  distinguishing  charac- 
teristic was  the  capacity  for  ardent  vigorous  action,  by  which  he  effected 
so  much  in  the  service  of  the  gospel.  But  the  fire  of  his  powerful  nature 
needed  first  to  be  transformed  by  the  flame  of  divine  love,  and  to  be  re- 
fined from  the  impurity  of  selfishness,  to  make  him  the  Rock-man  in  the 
publication  of  the  gospel.  By  the  natural  constitution  of  his  mind,  he  was 
indeed  disposed  to  surrender  himself  at  the  moment  entirely  to  the  im- 
pression which  seized  him,  without  being  turned  aside  by  those  considera- 
tions which  would  hold  back  more  timorous  spirits,  and  to  express  with 
energy  what  would  move  many  minds  ;  but  he  was  easily  misled  by  a 
rash  self-confidence  to  say  more,  and  to  venture  more,  than  he  could  ac- 
complish ;  and  though  he  quickly  and  ardently  seized  on  an  object,  he 
allowed  himself  too  easily  to  relinquish  it,  by  yielding  to  the  force  of 
another  sudden  and  powerful  impression. 

It  was  desirable  that  the  first  impression  made  on  Peter's  mind  should 
continue  to  act  upon  him  in  quiet, — on  which  account  Christ  at  first  left 
him  to  himself;  and  when,  by  repeated  operations,  everything  in  his  dis- 
position was  sufficiently  prepared,  he  received  him  into  the  number  of 
his  disciples,  who  should  everywhere  accompany  him.  But  that  which 
gave  the  last  decisive  impression,  was  something  exactly  adapted*  to 
Peter's  former  mode  of  life,  and  to  his  peculiar  character.  After  Christ 
had  finished  one  of  his  discourses  in  Peter's  vessel,  he  desired  him  to  let 
down  his  net  for  a  draught.  Although  he  had  toiled  in  vain  during  the 
whole  of  the  preceding  night,  yet  he  was  quite  ready  to  obey  the  com- 
mand of  the  Redeemer,  a  proof  of  the  confidence  he  already  placed  in 
him;  and  since,  after  the  various  preceding  impressions  which  he  received 
of  the  Divine  in  Christ,  he  was  so  astonished  by  the  successful  result,— 
the  sense  of  the  dignity  and  holiness  of  the  personage  who  stood  before 
him,  as  well  as  of  his  own  unworthiness,  so  overpowered  him,  that  he 
deemed  himself  not  fit  to  be  so  near. the  Holy  One,— Christ  took  advan- 
tage of  the  state  of  mind  thus  produced  to  draw  him  altogether  to  him- 
self, and  made  this  instance  of  success  in  his  worldly  occupation,  by 
which  Peter  had  been  so  wonder-struck,  a  symbol  of  the  spiritual  success 
which  would  attend  his  future  labors  in  his  service. 

We  find  many  indications  of  Peter's  constitutional  disposition  in  the 
relation  subsisting  between  Christ  and  himself,  and  between  himself  and 
the  other  disciples.     An  illustration  of  this  disposition  occurred  at  that 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  269. 


340  THE    APOSTLE   PETEB. 

crisis,  when  after  the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  impres- 
sion made  by  Christ  on  the  minds  of  the  multitude  had  reached  its  height, 
Christ  opposed  instead  of  fulfilling  the  sensuous  expectations  that  had 
been  excited,  and  the  impression  in  his  favor  was  reversed.  When, 
therefore,  many  of  those  persons  who  had  long  been  connected  with 
Christ,  forsook  him,  Christ  said  to  the  twelve  disciples  who  still  faith- 
fully followed  him,  "  Will  ye  also  go  away  ?"  Peter  testified  of  what 
they  all  felt  of  the  divine  impression  which  the  words  of  Christ  had  made 
on  his  inmost  soul,  and  how  deeply  he  felt — more  than  he  could  yet 
distinctly  apprehend, — that  a  divine  life  proceeded  from  his  words,  and 
that  those  who  received  his  sayings  were  made  partakers  of  a  divine  and 
blessed  life  enduring  for  ever.  "  To  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life.  We  believe,  we  know,  that  thou  art  consecrated 
of  God  to  the  Messiahship."  The  conviction  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
which  Peter  here  expresses,  was  without  doubt  of  a  different  kind  from 
that  which  was  produced  by  merely  beholding  the  miracles  he  wrought. 
It  was  a  conviction  deeply  seated  in  his  religious  and  moral  nature, 
which  originated  in  his  inward  experience  of  the  Divine  in  his  intercourse 
with  the  Redeemer.  Thus  Christ  declared,  when  Peter  said  to  him, 
"Thou  art  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  Matt.  xvi.  16,  that 
this  conviction  was  produced  on  his  heart  by  the  Spirit  of  God, — that  he 
spoke  not  according  to  human  opinion,  but  from  the  confidence  produced 
by  divine  excitement, — that  not  flesh  and  blood,  but  his  Father  in  heaven 
had  revealed  this  to  him.  And  since  the  conviction,  thus  grounded  in 
the  depths  of  his  disposition,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  was  the  foun- 
dation on  which  the  kingdom  of  God  rested,  in  allusion  to  this  fact 
Christ  called  him  the  Rock-man,  the  Rock  on  which  he  would  build  his 
church,  which  was  to  exist  for  ever.  There  is,  indeed,  a  reference  to 
Peter  personally,  and  to  his  peculiar  charism,  but  a  special  reference  to 
that  which  had  just  happened  when  Peter,  by  testifying  to  the  faith 
which  was  within  them  all,  and  which  constituted  the  foundation  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  had  proved  himself  to  be  qualified  to  be  the  represen- 
tative of  the  church  resting  on  the  rock-foundation  of  faith  in  Jesus  as 
the  Saviour.  What  others  silently  shut  up  within  them,  it  belonged  to 
the  peculiarity  of  Peter  to  proclaim  aloud,  and  to  proclaim  on  occasions 
that  brought  reproach,  as  well  as  on  occasions  that  brought  praise.  Thus 
happened  it  that  when  Christ  announced  to  his  disciples  his  approaching 
sufferings,  Peter  felt  impelled  instantaneously  as  it  arose  in  his  heart,  to 
express  the  sentiment  which  all  felt,  but  hesitated  to  express,  "  That  be 
far  from  thee,  Lord !"  But  here  the  feeling  of  love  to  Him  who  was 
most  fitted  to  kindle  the  fire  of  love  in  the  heart,  expressed  itself  in  a 
natural  human  form  so  strongly,  that  Peter,  with  this  state  of  disposition 
towards  the  cause  of  God,  which  requires  the  sacrifice  of  self,  and  of 
whatever  is  dearest  to  the  heart,  could  not  be  an  instrument  in  its  ser« 
vice ;  and  hence  the  Lord  addressed  him  with  words  of  severe  rebuke, 
and  assured  him  that,  with  such  a  disposition,  valuing  the  person  of  man 


THE   APOSTLE   PETER.  341 

higher  than  the  cause  of  God,  he  could  not  remain  in  his  fellowship ; 
that  by  this  disposition  he  became  a  tempter;  Matt.  xvi.  We  recognise 
the  same  tendency  to  be  carried  away  by  the  sudden  impulse  of  feeling, 
and  to  surrender  himself  to  the  vivid  impression  of  the  moment,  when 
the  Lord  assured  his  disciples  that,  on  the  night  of  his  Passion,  all  would 
forsake  him ;  the  too  confident  Peter  at  once  exclaimed,  "  Though  all 
men  should  forsake  thee,  yet  will  not  I ;  I  .will  lay  down  my  life  for  thy' 
sake."  This  over-hasty  self-confidence  soon  turned,  as  the  Lord  foretold, 
to  his  disgrace,  and  gave  occasion  for  bitter  repentance.  Yet  this  false 
step,  no  doubt,  served  to  advance  him  in  that  self-knowledge  which  is 
the  indispensable  condition  of  true  faith  in  the  Redeemer  and  true 
knowledge  of  him,  and  thus  to  the  whole  development  of  the  Christian 
life.  And  the  Lord  forgave  him  his  sin  ;  he  reminded  him  of  it  in  a 
manner  the  most  tender,  and  yet  piercing  the  very  depths  of  his  soul,  by 
the  question  thrice  repeated,  "  Lovest  thou  me  ?"*  and  required  from 
him,  as  the  proof  of  his  love,  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  apostolic  call- 
ing, the  care  of  his  sheep.f 

But  it  is  this  peculiar  character  of  Peter,  as  transformed  by  the  di- 
vine life,  with  which  we  see  him  afterwards  operating  as  an  organ  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  service  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  We  have  already 
pointed  out,  in  a  former  chapter,  what  an  important  position  he  occupied 
in  this  respect  at  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  until 
the  appearance  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  subsequently  as  an  intermediate 
point  between  Paul's  sphere  of  action  among  the  Gentiles  and  that  of  the 
older  apostles  among  the  Jews.  Though  .his  nature,  not  yet  thoroughly 
penetrated  by  the  Divine,  might  still  at  times  disturb  and  mar  his  exer- 
tions by  its  peculiar  failings,  yet  the  power  of  the  divine  principle  of  life 
within  him,  his  love  and  fidelity  to  the  Lord,  were  too  great  to  be  re- 
pressed by  those  corrupt  tendencies,  when  the  essential  interests  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  were  at  stake.  The  effect  of  sudden  impressions  is 
shown  in  his  conduct  at  Antioch  (ante,  p.  204),  but  the  subsequent  his- 


*  We  proceed  here  on  the  conviction,  that  the  21st  chapter  of  John's  gospel,  although 
not  composed  by  him,  contains  a  credible  tradition. 

f  It  is  indeed  possible  that  these  words  referred  personally  to  Peter,  in  the  sense  that 
he  specially  was  at  the  first  to  take  the  lead  in  the  guidance  of  the  church,  as  he  it  certainly 
was  who  first  spoke  in  the  name  of  all,  and  who  guided  the  deliberations  on  their  common 
affairs; — and  even  if  the  words  are  so  interpreted,  a  peculiar  apostolic  primacy  is  by  no 
means  committed  to  Peter,  but  the  position  entrusted  to  him  was  only  in  relation  to  exist- 
ing circumstances,  which  he  was  peculiarly  fitted  to  occupy  by  the  gift  of  government, 
xdpiofia  icvt3epvr/OEU(;,  which  harmonised  with  his  natural  talents.  But  these  words  may 
very  probably  be  cinsidered  as  a  general  description  of  the  vocation  of  preaching  the  gos- 
pel— which,  from  a  comparison  with  the  parable  in  the  10th  chapter  of  John,  is  very  prob- 
able— and  in  this  case,  they  contain  nothing  personal  in  relation  to  Peter  as  distinguished 
from  the  other  apostles.  Peter  always  appears  as  peculiarly  fitted  by  his  natural  character 
to  be  the  representative  of  the  fellowship  of  the  disciples,  and  hence  he  expressed  what  all 
deeply  felt,  and  Christ  particularly  addressed  to  him  those  sayings  which  in  their  full  ex* 
tent  related  generally  to  all  genuine  disciples. 


342  THE   APOSTLE    PETEK. 

tory  proves  that,  although  Peter  might  be  hurried  by  the  power  of  a 
suddqn  impression  to  act  in  a  way  which  involved  a  practical  denial  of 
principles  which  he  had  forme  fly  avowed,  yet  he  could  not  be  seduced 
to  be  permanently  unfaithful  to  these  principles  in  his  capacity  of  Chris- 
tian teacher,  and  so  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  lasting  opposition  to  Paul. 
On  the  contrary,  he  must  have  willingly  allowed  himself  to  be  set  right 
by  Paul,  since  he  thenceforward  continued  firmly  united  to  him  in  the 
bond  of  apostolic  fellowship.*  An  impartial  examination  of  history 
shows  that  such  fellowship  always  existed.  The  two  apostles  never 
ceased  to  acknowledge  one  another  as  genuine  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
though  against  the  tendency  which  attributed  an  excessive  authority  to 
Peter,  and  would  make  everything  bend  to  that — a  foreshadowing  of 
what  in  later  centuries  actually  took  place  under  the  name  of  Peter — 
Paul  must  always  have  protested. 

From  Peter's  ardent  zeal,  and  from  what  we  know  of  his  successful 
efforts  for  spreading  the  kingdom  of  God  till  the  conversion  of  Corne- 
lius, we  may  infer  that,  during  that  period  of  his  life  respecting  which 
we  have  no  information,  he  extended  still  further  the  circle  of  his  opera- 
tions for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel.  As  he  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Acts  later  than  the  account  of  the  deliberations  at  Jerusalemf  recorded 
in  the  1 5th  chapter,  it  seems  probable  that  the  scene  of  his  subsequent 
labors  lay  at  a  distance  from  that  city.  According  to  an  ancient  tradi- 
tion,;); Peter  published  the  gospel  to  the  Jews  scattered  throughout  Pon- 
tus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Lesser  Asia,  and  Bithynia.     But  this  account  has 


*  We  can  by  no  means  agree  in  the  opinion  expressed  by  Elwart,  in  his  acute  Essay 
on  Inspiration,  in  that  valuable  periodical  the  Studien  der  evangelischen  Geistlichkeit  Wiir- 
tembergs,  vol.  iii.  No.  2,  p.  72,  that  the  old  distinction  for  securing  the  idea  of  inspiration 
between  vitium  conversations  and  error  doctrines  is  wholly  untenable,  and,  therefore,  the 
possibility  of  a  mixture  of  error  in  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  must  be  allowed.  It  can 
certainly  be  easily  shown  that  the  error  conversationis  does  not  here  necessarily  imply  the 
error  doctfince.  When  Peter,  in  consequence  of  a  sudden  over-hastiness  or  weakness, 
suffered  himself  to  be  misled  through  regard  to  his  Jewish  fellow-believers,  and  to  act  in 
a  manner  which  corresponded  rather  to  the  prejudices  of  others,  than  to  his  own  better 
views,  such  a  sudden  practical  error  by  no  means  justifies  us  in  the  conclusion,  that  his 
own  knowledge  of  Christian  truth  had  been  eclipsed,  and  that  his  sounder  views  had  en- 
tirely vanished.  The  most  we  could  infer  would  be,  that  at  this  instant,  when  overpow- 
ered by  impressions  from  without,  he  had  no  clear  peroeption  of  the  principles  on  which 
he  was  acting.  Had  he  indeed  not  repented  of  this  sudden  false  step  arising  from  the  fear 
of  man, — had  he  hardened  himself  in  this  moral  delinquency,  a  permanent  obscuration  of 
Christian  consciousness  itself  must  have  been  the  consequence,  and,  as  the  history  of  many 
similar  instances  of  backsliding  exemplifies,  a  practical  denial  of  the  truth  would  have  been 
followed  by  a  theoretical  one ;  but  this  could  never  come  to  pass  in  that  individual  in 
whom  the  spirit  of  Christ  had  attained  such  a  preponderance  over  the  selfish  principle. 
And  thus  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  suppose,  that  Peter  allowed  the  act  into  which  he  had 
been  hurried  by  the  power  of  a  sudden  temptation  to  establish  itself  in  his  teaching,  to  such 
extent  as  to  prevent  or  obscure  his  perception  of  Christian  truth. 

f  What  Paul  says  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5,  suggests  the  journeys  of  the  apostle. 

$  See  Origen,  t.  iii.  in  Genes.     Eusebius,  iii.  1 . 


TRADITIONS   RESPECTING   PETER.  343 

most  probably  arisen  from  a  false  conclusion  from  the  superscription  of 
his  First  Epistle.*  This  epistle  of  Peter  leads  us  rather  to  suppose,  that 
the  scene  of  his  labors  was  in  the  Parthian  empire,  for  as  he  sends  salu- 
tations from  his  wife  in  Babylon, f  this  naturally  supports  the  conclusion, 
that  he  himself  was  in  that  neighborhood.  And  in  itself,  it  is  by  no 
means  improbable  that  Peter,  whose  ministrations  related  particularly  to 
the  descendants  of  the  Jews,  betook  himself  to  a  region  where  so  many" 
Jews  were  scattered  ;  and  what  we  know  of  the  early  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity in  those  parts,  serves  to  confirm  the  opinion.  Yet  the  fact  that 
Peter  exercised  his  ministry  at  a  later  period  in  the  countries  composing 
the  Parthian  empire,  by  no  means  renders  it  impossible  that  he  labored 
at  an  earlier  period  in  Lesser  Asia.  Still  it  contradicts  this  supposition 
that,  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  in  which  a  fair  opportunity  was  given  to 
touch  upon  such  a  relation,  we  find  no  trace  of  Peter's  residing  in  the 
circle  of  Paul's  labors ;  this,  however,  we  do  not  adduce  as  perfectly  de- 
cisive evidence.  But  we  must  attach  greater  weight  to  the  fact,  that,  in 
this  epistle  of  Peter,  there  is  no  reference  to  his  own  earlier  presence 
among  the  churches  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  though  the  object  of  this 
epistle  must  have  especially  recpiired  him  to  remind  them  of  what  they 
had  heard  from  his  own  lips. 

It  appears  then,  that,  after  Peter  had  found  his  field  of  exertion 
among  the  Jews  of  the  Parthian  empire,  he  wrote  to  the  churches 
founded  by  Paul  and  his  disciples  in  Asia  the  epistle,^  which  is  the  only 

*  Origen's  expression  is  very  doubtful:  "he  seems  to  have  preached,"  xeiciipvxevai 
eoiicev. 

\  By  a  most  unnatural  interpretation,  thi3  has  been  supposed  to  mean  an  inconsidera- 
ble town  in  Egypt,  a  "fortified  post,"(<ppovpiov  epv/xvbv),at  that  time,  see  Strabo,  xvii.  1, 
although  this  small  town  existed  as  late  as  the  fifth  century;  see  Hist.  Lansiae.  c.  25.  And 
there  is  nothing  against  our  supposing  that  an  inhabited  portion  of  the  immense  Babylon 
was  still  left.  Also,  on  the  supposition  that  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  was  forged  in  his 
name,  it  appears  to  me  by  no  means  natural  for  the  writer  to  mention  Rome  under  that 
designation.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  at  the  end  of  the  first, or  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond, century  Rome  was  commonly  designated  by  the  name  of  Babylon,  and  it  might  be 
expected  that  whoever  forged  such  an  epistle,  would  by  some  intimation  let  it  be  known 
that  this  name  was  to  be  taken  symbolically,  since  it  was  of  importance  to  him  that  all  his 
readers  should  understand  that  the  epistle  was  written  from  Rome.  At  all  events,  it  is 
far  more  natural  to  understand  by  the  words  "  elected  together  with,"  ?)  owe/cXetcr?/,  Peter's 
wife  rather  than  the  church.  This,  we  feel  assured,  is  the  only  sound  interpretation  of  the 
word.  The  antiquity  of  the  other  explanation  can  prove  nothing,  since  no  tradition  says 
anything  of  Peter's  residence  in  these  parts,  but  on  the  contrary,  much  attention  was  given 
to  the  tradition  of  Peter's  journey  to  Rome,  and,  as  there  was  an  inclination  to  sym- 
bolical meanings,  a  point  of  connexion  was  found  in  the  Apocalypse,  so  that  this  interpre- 
tation would  easily  gain  acceptance.  But  indeed,  whoever  forged  an  epistle  under  the 
name  of  Peter  would  have  supported  himself  by  a  more  familiar  tradition,  and  not  have 
transported  Peter  to  Babylon.  If  Peter  sent  salutations  from  his  wife  in  Babylon,  it  per- 
fectly agrees  with  what  we  are  told  in  1  Cor.  ix.  5,  that  she  accompanied  Peter  on  his  mis- 
sionary journeys. 

%  Although  Schwegler  has  expressed  himself,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  work  on  t!  e 
Dost-apostolic  age    ivith  so  much  confidence  on  the  spuriousness  of  this  epistle,  yet  we 


344  THE   FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETEB. 

memorial  preserved  to  us  of  his  later  labors.  All  the  marks  of  its  date 
unite  in  placing  it  in  the  last  part  of  the  apostolic  age,  in  the  period  sub- 
sequent to  Paul's  first  confinement.  We  find  Silvanus,  one  of  Paul's 
early  fellow  laborers,  among  Peter's  attendants,  which  agrees  very  well 

attach  little  or  no  weight  to  most  of  his  reasons.  He  adduces  as  one  mark  of  spurious- 
ness,  that  the  writer  says  and  reports  nothing  about  himself  in  a  more  definite  manner. 
But  if  there  had  been  more  distinct  allusions  to  Peter's  character  and  history,  they  would 
doubtless  have  been  regarded  as  a  sign  that  some  other  person  wished  to  pass  himself  off 
for  Peter.  And  certainly,  whoever  had  any  motive  for  assuming  the  part  of  Peter,  would 
have  been  induced  to  avail  himself  for  this  object  of  whatever  he  knew  of  the  person  and 
character  of  this  apostle,  and  several  things  of  this  kind  must  have  been  known  to  any 
Christian  who  could  forge  such  an  epistle.  But  in  this  epistle  we  really  find  many  marks 
by  which  Peter  might  make  himself  known  in  an  unobtrusive  manner,  but  quite  different 
from  those,  which  another  person  would  have  chosen  who  wished  to  act  Peter's  part. 
Among  such  marks  we  reckon  that  Peter  (v.  1,)  describes  himself  as  a  witness  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ.  From  the  position  occupied  by  Peter,  this  would  appear  very  natural. 
But  any  forger  of  such  an  epistle,  wishing  to  compile  one  after  the  pattern  of  the  other 
apostolic  epistles,  would  have  chosen  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  his  miracles,  or  the  trans- 
figuration, as  in  the  Second  Epistle,  rather  than  his  passion.  The  author  writes  also  as  an 
eye-witness,  before  whom  the  image  of  a  suffering  Christ  presented  itself  as  a  living  presence, 
as  a  pattern  for  Christians.  Schleiermacher,  jn  his  Introduction,  p.  408,  has  very  properly 
directed  attention  to  ch.  i.  8,  in  which  the  author  does  not  make  himself  known,  design- 
edly, as  one  who  had  seen  and  personally  known  Christ,  but,  from  an  immediate  conscious- 
ness that  he  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  Christ,  writes  to  those  who  had  stood  in  no  such 
relation.  The  reference  to  Christ's  descent  into  Hades,  Schleiermacher  regards  as  a  mark 
of  genuineness ;  for  he  thinks  that  whoever  forged  such  an  epistle,  would  not  have  placed 
himself  on  such  slippery  ground ;  "  for  evidently  here  is  something  which  had  not  passed 
over  into  the  common  public  teaching  of  Christians,  and  yet  strikes  us  as  something  foreign 
to  the  New  Testament  representations."  To  this  reason  I  cannot  attach  importance.  A 
person  might  indeed  have  a  motive,  by  writing  under  the  name  of  an  apostle,  to  give  cir- 
culation to  an  opinion  different  from  the  current  representations ;  and  that  opinion  was  not 
so  foreign  to  the  Christian  thinking  of  the  first  ages  as  to  Schleiermacher's.  But  when 
Schvvegler  reckons  the  introduction  of  this  doctrine  as  one  of  the  marks  of  a  Pauline  ele- 
ment in  the  epistle,  foreign  to  Peter,  as  a  deduction  drawn  and  doctrinally  formed  in  the 
Pauline  circles  from  the  Pauline  principle  of  the  universality  of  the  Christian  salvation,  I 
can  by  no  means  agree  with  him.  For  this  was  not  the  universal  application  of  this  doc- 
trine. Marcion  had  given  to  this  doctrine,  existing  long  before  in  other  circles,  a  modifi- 
cation corresponding  to  his  peculiar  system.     (See  my  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  460.) 

And  it  may  be  questioned,  whether  without  such  an  authority  as  that  of  Peter,  this 
statement,  which  certainly  agrees  well  with  the  Christian  system,  would  have  soon  found 
such  general  acceptance.  But  the  complete  formation  of  such  a  representation,  is  well 
suited  to  the  position  of  an  apostle  who  had  himself  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  It  was  exactly  to  a  person  who  had  witnessed  those  great  events, 
that  such  a  question  was  most  likely  to  occur,  to  which  the  answer  is  given  in  this  state- 
ment. It  is  possible  that  the  apostle,  when  in  company  with  Christ  after  his  resurrection, 
had  made  an  inquiry  on  this  subject,  although  we  would  not  maintain  that  the  doctrine 
was  derived  from  such  a  source.  And  what  Peter  experienced  in  his  early  ministry  among 
the  Gentiles,  and  what  he  said  on  that  occasion  in  the  family  of  Cornelius,  might  form  a 
point  of  connexion  for  his  reflecting  on  such  an  agency  on  the  part  of  Christ  as  is  indicated 
in  that  passage.  But  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  this  topic  is  touched  very  cursorily,  and 
by  no  means  presented  with  that  prominence  and  earnestness  which  might  be  expected 
from  one  who  sought  to  gain  acceptance  for  it  by  employing  the  authority  of  an  apostolic 
name. 


TRADITIONS   RESPECTING   PETER-  345 

■with  our  never  meeting  with  Silvanus  as  Paul's  companion,  after  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem.  The  Christian  churches  to  whom  the  epistle  is 
directed,  appear  to  us  exposed  to  such  persecutions  as  first  arose  about 
this  period.  The  Christians  were  now  persecuted  as  Christians,  and 
according  to  those  popular  rumors  of  which  Nero  took  advantage,  were 
looked  upon  and  treated  as  "  evil-doers,"  (naitoTTOioi,  malefici).  By  the 
seriousness  and  strictness  of  their  daily  conduct,  and  their  withdrawal 
from  the  public  shows  and  other  licentious*  amusements,  they  rendered 
themselves  obnoxious,  as  in  later  times,  to  the  hatred  of  the  heathen  pop- 
ulace ;  1  Peter  iv.  4,  5  ;*  and  if  we  reflect  on  the  circumstances  in  which 
these  churches  were  placed  during  Paul's  first  confinement,  the  design  of 
the  epistle  will  at  once  be  apparent.  As  these  churches  had  to  contend 
with  persecutions  from  without,  so  they  were  internally  disturbed  by 
those  heretical  tendencies  of  which  we  have  spoken  in  a  former  chapter. 
Since  the  propagators  of  these  errors  accused  Paul  of  falsifying  the  orig- 
inal Christian  doctrine,  and  had  appealed  to  the  authority  of  the  elder 
apostles  in  behalf  of  the  continued  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law,  Peter 
availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  for  addressing  these  churches,  in  order 
to  establish  them  in  the  conviction,  that  the  doctrine  announced  to  them 
by  Paul  and  his  disciples  and  companions,  of  whom  Silvanus  was  one, 
was  genuinely  Christian,  and  to  exhort  them  to  a  faithful  and  steadfast 


*  Schwegler  has  controverted  this  view,  and  maintains  that  this  epistle  could  only  have 
been  written  under  the  Emperor  Trajan  ;  a  position  of  the  Christians  is  here  implied  which 
they  were  first  placed  in  by  that  emperor's  well-known  rescript.  But  I  cannot  help  pro- 
nouncing, alike  the  assumptions  on  which  this  writer  proceeds,  and  the  inferences  he  draws 
from  them,  to  be  wholly  unfounded.  The  Neronian  persecution  proves,  indeed,  that  the 
Christians  were  already  the  objects  of  popular  hatred,  and  were  accounted  by  the  multi- 
tude as  malefici.  It  could  not  fail  but  that  popular  hatred  would  show  itself  in  their  con- 
duct towards  the  Christians.  Although  Christianity  was  not  yet  designated  a  religio  illicita 
by  an  express  enactment,  yet  it  would  follow  of  itself  from  the  constitution  of  the  Roman 
polity  that  the  propagation  of  a  religion  which  would  involve  the  downfall  of  the  religion 
of  the  State,  would  be  illegal  and  worthy  of  punishment.  As  soon  as  it  came  to  light 
that  the  "  Christians,"  X;>ianavol,  were  a  genus  tertium,  Christianity  must  appear,  even 
prior  to  any  special  legislation  respecting  it,  as  a  religio  illicita.  Though  Nero's  persecu- 
tion was  only  occasional  and  transient,  yet  what  took  place  in  the  metropolis  of  the  empire 
must  have  operated  injuriously  on  the  condition  of  Christians  in  the  provinces.  Everything 
which  happened  from  this  time  to  Trajan's  first  rescript,  testifies  of  preceding  persecutions 
against  the  Christians,  in  which,  by  the  new  law  of  Trajan,  only  a  more  legal  arrangement 
had  been  made.  "We  dare  not  allow  ourselves  to  infer  too  much  from  the  gaps  in  our 
knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  history.  The  manner  also  in  which  persecutions  are  spoken 
of  in  ch.  iv.  4,  serve  to  mark  them  as  new.  How  can  any  one  who  allows  that  the  Apo- 
calypse was  written  before  Trajan's  accession,  fail  to  perceive  the  existence  of  earlier  per- 
secutions? Rev.  vi.  9;  xvii.  6;  xx.  4.  The  last  passage  is  peculiarly  important,  since  it 
points  to  something  more  than  a  mere  popular  infliction  of  punishment,  which  would  not 
have  been  satisfied  with  merely  beheading  the  Christians.  It  appears  from  that  passage 
that  it  was  already  established  in  the  administration  of  Roman  law,  to  apply  this  capital 
punishment  to  Christians — and  hence  we  perceive  tho  great  gaps  in  our  historical  knowl- 


346  THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   PETEB. 

continuance  in  it.*  These  churches  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  tho3fl 
who  had  been  previously  heathens,  for  such,  in  several  passages,  he  sup- 
poses his  readers  to  be ;  ii.  10;  iv,  3.  The  superscription  of  the  epistle 
is  not  inconsistent  with  this  fact ;  for  as  Peter,  by  his  training  and  pecu- 
liar sphere  of  labor,  was  apt  to  develop  Christian  truths  in  Old  Testa- 
ment images  and  comparisons,  he  transferred  also  the  name  of  "  disper- 
sion "  to  the  true  church  of  God  scattered  among  the  heathen. 

In  reference  to  the  internal  and  external  circumstances  of  the  churches, 
the  object  of  this  hortatory  composition  is  two-fold ;  partly  to  ground 
them  more  firmly  in  the  consciousness,  that  the  source  of  happiness  and 
the  foundation  of  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  God  was  contained  in  that 
faith  in  the  Redeemer  which  had  been  announced  to  them  and  received 
by  them  into  their  hearts, — that  the  doctrine  announced  to  them  was 
indeed  the  everlasting,  unchangeable  word  of  God,  and  hence  they  were 
to  aim  at  appropriating,  more  and .  more  with  child-like  simplicity,  the 
pure,  simple  doctrine  of  the  gospel  delivered  to  them  from  the  beginning, 
and  thus  continually  advance  to  Christian  maturity ;  and  partly  it  was 
the  apostle's  design  to  exhort  them  to  maintain  their  steadfastness  in  the 
faith  under  all  persecutions,  and  a  corresponding  course  of  conduct  by 
which  they  would  shine  forth  in  the  midst  of  the  corrupt  heathen  world, 
and  refute  the  false  accusations  against  Christianity  and  its  professors. 

Both  these  objects  are  pointed  out  by  the  apostle  at  the  close  of  the 
epistle,  when  he  says,  "The  faithful  brother  Silvanus  is  the  bearer  to  you 
of  this,  a  short  epistle  considering  what  I  would  gladly  say  to  you,  and 
which  I  have  written  for  your  encouragement,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  the 
true  gracef  of  God,  in  the  firm  possession  of  which  you  stand  by  faith."J 
The  unassuming  manner  in  which  the  writer  of  this  epistle  represents 

*  "We  can  regard  the  declaration  that  such  a  production  would  be  aimless  as  nothing 
but  a  mere  assertion ;  and  if  it  be  held  to  be  impossible  that  Peter  should  place  himself  in 
such  relation  to  the  churches  founded  by  Paul,  this  can  agree  only  with  a  supposition 
whose  arbitrariness  we  have  pointed  out. 

f  Grace,  the  grace  of  redemption,  a  description  of  the  whole  contents  of  the  gospel. 

\  The  words  may  be  certainly  taken  to  mean,  that  Silvanus  was  the  writer  of  the 
epistle,  dictated  by  Peter  either  in  Aramaio  or  Greek ;  but  in  this  case,  r  salutation  from 
Silvanus  would  probably  have  been  added,  especially  since  he  must  have  been  well  known 
to  these  churches.  The  possibility  of  the  interpretation  which  I  have  adopted,  is  evident 
from  the  phraseology  which  is  adopted  in  the  subscriptions  of  the  Pauline  epistles;  and 
the  use  of  the  aorist,  eyparpa,  allowing  for  the  epistolary  style  of  the  ancients,  can  prove 
nothing  against  it.  From  this  interpretation  we  may  also  understand  the  commendatory 
epithet,  "  a  faithful  brother."  The  words  "  as  I  suppose,"  ug  Xoyify/iai,  may  indeed  relate 
to  what  goes  before,  ibr  this  verb  is  used  by  Paul  in  Rom.  viii.  18  ;  Rom.  hi.  28 ;  2  Cor. 
si.  5,  to  denote  a  subjective  conviction,  without  the  accessory  idea  of  any  uncertainty  in 
holding  it.  Peter  might  also  wish  to  mark  the  subjective  of  his  own  judgment,  for  it  was 
precisely  the  peculiar  authority  of  Peter,  to  which  many  opposers  of  the  Pauline  school 
appealed.  But  if  Xoyi&fiai  is  referred  to  what  follows,  it  is  equally  a  mark  of  subjective 
judgment  or  feeling.  That  which  Peter  wrote  was,  in  relation  to  what  he  had  in  hia 
heart  to  say  to  the  churches,  only  a  little.  Yet  had  he  intended  to  express  that  senti- 
ment, he  would  rather  have  said,  6C  oXiyuv,  ug  Xoyi&pai. 


THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER.  347 

himself  to  the  presbyters  *  of  the  churches  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  as 
one  of  their  number,  one  of  the  number  of  Christian  overseers,  bears 
with  it  the  impress  of  the  apostolic  spirit. 

As  the  object  for  which  this  epistle  must  have  been  written  perfectly 
corresponded  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  there  is  nothing  in  its 
composition  which  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  the  writer  had  forged  it 
with  a  conciliatory  design.  A  person  of  this  description  would  hardly 
have  put  such  a  restraint  on  himself,  and  expressed  himself  so  guardedly, 
that  one  part  oThis  object — which  according  to  this  supposition  was  his 
principal  object — could  only  be  discovered  by  a  careful  investigation. 
The  peculiar  characteristic  of  Peter,  his  occupying  a  position  between 
Paul  and  James,  is  indeed  apparent  in  the  epistle  ;  but  the  points  of  con- 
tact with  the  Pauline  element*  are  also  visible,  as  Paul  had  already  exerted 
a  preponderating  influence  on  the  formation  of  the  Christian  ideas,  espe- 
cially among  those  who  used  the  Greek  language.  But  we  must  here 
distinguish  what  is  peculiarly  Pauline  from  what  was  deduced  in  common 
from  the  same  original  source,  and  in  the  handling  of  dogmatical  points 
we  need  not  expect  such  strikingly  marked  mental  peculiarity  in  the 
Rock-man  of  the  church,  as  in  a  Paul  or  a  John.  Since  this  epistle,  as  a 
hortatory  circular,  is  a  counterpart  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  we 
cannot  think  it  strange  if  no  references  occur  in  it  to  special  local  circum- 
stances, as  in  the  other  Pauline  epistles,  but  that  everything  is  more 
general.  We  might  anticipate  that  this  would  be  the  case  in  such  an 
epistle. 

The  expectation  of  the  end  of  all  things  as  impending,  is  suitable  to 
the  apostolic  age,  and  the  events  in  Nero's  reign  must  have  tended  to 
awaken  this  expectation. 

A  comparison  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  with  the  Second  ascribed 
to  him,  makes  apparent  the  genuineness  of  the  First,  as  well  as  the 
forgery  of  the  Second ;  and  as  the  Second  is  slightly  supported  by  ex- 
ternal evidence,  we  have  made  no  use  of  it  as  a  source  of  information  for 
the  biography  of  the  Apostle.f 

*  Sohwegler  thinks,  p.  27,  that  in  1  Pet.  v.  1,  there  is  indicated  a  distinction  of 
condition  betweea  clergy  and  laity,  a  supposition  that  depends  on  an  altogether  false  in- 
terpretation of  the  passage,  after  the  manner  of  Baur  in  the  Tabinger  Zeitschrift  fur  TheoU 
ogie,  1838,  No.  3,  p.  93.  It  is  impossible  that  church  officers,  who  could  have  been  called 
K?S/poi,  should  have  been  so  treated.  The  word  "heritage,"  «A;)pof,  refers,  as  the  connec- 
tion shews,  to  "the  flock  of  God,"  iroifiviov  rov  deov, — the  churches  over  which  the 
presbyters  had  been  placed  by  divine  appointment,  and  which  had  been  entrusted  to  their 
guidance. 

f  The  principal  marks  of  the  spuriousness  of  this  epistle,  are  the  difference  of  the  whole 
character  and  style  compared  with  the  First,  and  the  use  here  made  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude, 
which  is  partly  copied  and  partly  imitated.  The  author  assumes  that  he  is  writing  to  the 
same  churches  as  those  to  whom  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  addressed,  and  yet  what  he 
says  of  his  relation  to  his  readers,  is  at  variance  with  that  assumption,  for,  according  to 
the  Second  Epistle,  they  must  have  been  persons  who  had  been  personally  instructed  by 
the  apostle  Peter,  and  with  whom  he  stood  in  a  close  personal  connexion,  yet  this  was  a 


348  .  THE   SECOND   EPISTLE   OF   PETER. 

After  the  second  half  of  the  second  century,  a  report  was  generally 
circulated  that  Peter  died  a  martyr  under  the  Emperor  Nero  at  Rome.* 
According  to  a  later  tradition,  when  Peter  was  condemned  to  crucifixion, 
he  scrupled,  from  a  feeling  of  humility,  to  be  put  to  death  exactly  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  Saviour,  and  therefore  requested  that  he  might  be 
crucified  with  his  head  downwards,  and  his  feet  upwards.  Such  a  story 
bears  on  its  front  the  impress  of  a  later  morbid  piety  rather  than  simple 
apostolic  humility.  The  apostles  exulted  and  rejoiced  to  imitate  their 
Lord  in  all  things,  and  the  tradition  thus  formed  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  known  to  Tertullian,  for  though  his  peculiar  turn  of  mind  would 
have 'disposed  him  to  receive  such  an  account,  he  says  expressly  that 
Peter  suffered  in  the  same  manner  as  Christ.f 

With  respect  to  the  tradition,  according  to  which  Peter  at  last  visited 
Rome,  and  there  suffered  martyrdom, — it  does  not  well  agree  with  what 
we  have  mentioned  above  respecting  his  residence  in  the  Parthian  Em- 
pire, for  since  this  is  supposed  to  have  been  after  the  Neronian  persecu- 

relation  in  which  the  churches  to  whom  the  First  Epistle  was  addressed  could  not  stand. 
The  solicitude  with  which  he  endeavors  to  make  himself  known  as  the  apostle  Peten 
betrays  an  apocryphal  writer.  The  allusion  to  the  words  of  Christ,  John  xxi.  18,  in  i. 
14,  is  brought  forward  in  an  unsuitable  manner.  In  order  to  distinguish  himself  as  a 
credible  witness  of  the  life  of  Christ,  he  appeals  to  the  phenomena  at  the  transfigura- 
tion. But  it  certainly  is  not  natural  to  suppose  that  one  of  the  apostles  should  select 
and  bring  forward  from  the  whole  life  of  Christ,  of  which  they  had  been  eye-witnesses, 
this  insulated  fact,  which  was  less  essentially  connected  with  that  which  was  the  central 
point  and  object  of  his  appearance;  the  apostles  were  rather  accustomed  to  claim  credit 
as  witnesses  of  the  suffering  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Also  the  designation  of  the 
mountain  on  which  the  transfiguration  occurred  as  "the  holy  mount,"  betrays  a  later 
origin,  since  we  cannot  suppose  that  the  mountain  usually  so  denominated,  Mount 
Zion,  was  intended.  Among  the  circumstances  that  excite  suspicion,  is  the  manner  in 
which  the  same  false  teachers,  who,  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  are  described  as  actually 
existing,  are  here  represented  with  prophetic  warning,  as  about  to  appear.  The  doubts 
respecting  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  occasioned  by  the  expectation  of  the  immediate 
occurrence  of  that  event  in  the  first  age  of  the  church,  and  the  disappointment  of  that 
expectation,  leads  us  to  recognise  a  later  period.  What  is  said  of  the  origin  of  the 
world  from  water,  and  its  destruction  by  fire,  does  not  correspond  to  the  simplicity  and 
practical  spirit  of  the  apostolic  doctrine,  but  rather  indicates  the  spirit  of  a  later  age, 
mingling  much  that  was  foreign  with  the  religious  interest.  The  mode  of  citing  the 
Pauline  epistles,  confirms  also  the  suspicion  against  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle.  A 
passage  from  Rom.  ii.  4,  is  cited  iii.  15,  as  if  this  epistle  had  been  addressed  to  the  same 
church.  A  collection  of  all  the  Pauline  epistles  is  referred  to,  and  it  is  assumed,  that 
Paul  in  all  of  then*  referred  to  one  subject  which  yet  by  no  means  appears  in  all.  Paul's 
epistles  are  quoted  as  "  scriptures,"  ypafal,  as  one  apostle  would  certainly  not  have  ex- 
pressed himself  respecting  the  epistles  of  another  apostle,  for  this  term  in  the  apostolic 
epistles  is  always  used  only  to  designate  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  epistle 
was  probably  forged  by  those  who  wished  to  combat  the  Gnostic  errors,  and  the  opinion 
broached  by  the  Gnostics  of  a  contrariety  between  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  by  the 
borrowed  authority  of  the  former. 

*  The  first  trace  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  Origen,  Euseb.  iii.  1.  The  complete  narrative 
in  Jerome,  de  Viris  Illustrib.  i. 

f  De  Prescript.  36.     Ubi  Petrus  passioni  dominicae  adsequatur. 


THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  PETER.  349 

tion,  and  since  the  martyrdom  of  Peter,  according  to  ancient  accounts, 
must  have  happened  at  the  same  time  as  Paul's,  Peter  must  within  a 
short  period  have  changed  the  scene  of  his  labors  from  one  very  distant 
region  of  the  globe  to  another.  And  it  appears  strange  that  he  should 
have  relinquished  his  labors  in  a  region  where  so  much  was  to  be  done 
for  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  and  betake  himself  to  one  at  so  great  a  dis- 
tance, where  Paul  and  his  associates  had  already  laid  a  good  foundation, 
and  were  continuing  to  build  on  the  foundation  already  laid.  But  so 
many  circumstances  unknown  to  us  might  conspire  to  bring  about  such 
an  event,  that  with  our  defective  knowledge  of  the  church  history  of 
that  time,  what  we  have  stated  cannot  be  considered  a  decisive  evidence 
against  the  truth  of  the  tradition,  if  it  can  be  sufficiently  supported  on 
other  grounds.  We  can  also  easily  imagine  a  particular  interest  which 
would  induce  Peter  to  change  his  scene  of  labor  to  Rome,  the  same  in- 
terest which  was  the  occasion  of  his  writing  the  first  epistle,  that  ol 
healing  the  division  which  in  many  parts  existed  between  his  own  ad- 
herents and  those  of  Paul.  This  division  would  find  a  rallying  point  in 
the  opposition  between  the  Gentile  Christians  and  Judaizing  elements  in 
the  church  at  Rome,  and  the  movements  in  the  metropolitan  church 
would  exert  an  influence  over  the  whole  church  ;  and  this  might  be  a 
consideration  of  sufficient  weight  with  Peter  to  induce  him  to  undertake 
a  journey  to  Rome.  We  only  need  inquire,  therefore,  whether  this  tra- 
dition is  adequately  supported  by  credible  witnesses. 

The  Roman  Bishop  Clemens  appears  as  the  first  witness  of  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  Peter.  If  he  expressly  stated  that  Peter  was  martyred  at 
Rome,  we  should  have  incontrovertible  evidence  and  require  no  fur- 
ther examination.  But  such  an  exact  determination  of  the  place  is  want- 
ing. Yet  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  Clemens  did  not  know  the  name 
of  the  place  where  Peter  suffered  martyrdom,  for  there  was  no  need  of 
such  particularity  for  his  readers  when  he  was  writing  of  an  event  which 
he  might  assume  to  be  generally  known.  It  cannot  be  maintained,  that 
when  he  was  writing  at  the  place  where  Peter  shed  his  blood  as  a  wit- 
ness of  the  faith,  and  simply  enumerating  examples  of  steadfastness  in 
persecuted  champions  of  the  faith,  he  should  in  such  connexion  feel  him- 
self bound  expressly  to  mention  the  scene  of  his  last  sufferings.  Even 
in  commemorating  Paul's  martyrdom,  we  find  no  such  phrase  as  "  here 
before  our  eyes,"  "  in  the  city  from  which  I  am  now  writing  to  you." 
It  may  appear  strange  that  Clemens  speaks  in  such  general  terms  of 
Peter  as  a  person  of  whom  he  possessed  no  precise  information,*  and  on 
the  other  hand  speaks  in  such  definite  terms  of  Paul.  This  might  jus- 
tify the  conclusion  that  he  had  really  no  exact  information  respecting 
Peter's  end,  and  hence  we  might  be  allowed  to  infer  that  the  scene  of 
Peter's  labors  was  to  the  very  time  of  his  martyrdom  at  a  distance  from 

*  Ovx  eva,  ov6i  6vo,  dXld.  nXeiovag  vitTjveyKe  novovg  Kal  ovru  fiaprvp^aag.  (Not  one, 
nor  two,  but  many  sufferings  were  borne  by  him,  and  thus  he  became  a  martyr.) 


350  TRADITION    OF   PETER'S    VISIT   TO    ROME. 

Rome.*  Yet  on  the  other  hand  it  may  be  said,  that  Clemens,  as  one  of 
Paul's  disciples,  was  induced  to  speak  of  him  in  more  definite  terms,  and 
though  Peter  met  with  the  close  of  his  labors  at  Rome,  that  Clemens 
could  not  say  much  of  his  earlier  confiicts.f  The  first  person  who  dis- 
tinctly states  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  at  Rome  is  Dionysius,  bishop  of 
Corinth,  who  wrote  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century.  In  his  epistle 
to  the  church  at  Rome,J  he  calls  that  and  the  Corinthian  the  common 
planting  of  Peter  and  Paul.  Both  had  planted  the  church  at  Corinth, 
and  had  equally  taught  there.  In  the  same  manner  they  had  both  taught 
in  Italy  and  suffered  martyrdom  at  the  same  time.  Here  we  find  a  definite 
statement  of  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  at  Rome,  though  accompanied  in- 
deed by  great  want  of  exactness.  Dionysius  does  not  absolutely  say  that 
Peter  and  Paul  taught  at  Corinth  at  the  same  time,  which,  in  reference  to 
the  time  before  the  first  confinement  of  Paul  at  Rome,  certainly  cannot  be 
admitted,  and  in  reference  to  the  time  after  that  event,  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed. But  at  all  events,  he  is  not  accurate  in  terming  the  Corinthian 
church  the  common  planting  of  the  apostles.  For,  supposing  that  the  tra- 
dition of  Peter's  journey  to  Rome  is  credible,  it  might  happen  that,  after 
the  first  confinement  of  Paul,  he  visited  Corinth,  but  he  could  do  nothing 
towards  founding  a  church  which  already  had  been  established  there. 
Perhaps  this  whole  account  proceeded, partly  from  misunderstanding  the 
references  to  the  apostle  Peter  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
partly  from  attempting  to  trace  the  origin  of  this  ecclesia  apostolica 
from  the  two  most  distinguished  apostles.  The  same  remark  will  apply 
to  the  church  at  Rome.  And  according  to  what  we  have  stated  above,§ 
Paul  came  from  Spain  as  a  prisoner  to  Rome,  and  could  not  have  ap- 
peared there  as  a  teacher  in  conjunction  with  Peter. ||  But  this  inac- 
curacy in  the  representation  of  events  long  past,  in  which  Dionysius 
allowed  himself  to  be  guided  more  by  uncertain  inferences  than  by  his- 
torical traditions,  cannot  be  employed  to  weaken  the  weight  of  his  depo- 

*  I  by  no  means  find  sufficient  ground  for  doubting  that  Clemens  had  been  a  follower 
of  Paul ;  for  I  cannot  consider  as  historically  credited  what  is  narrated  of  the  connexion 
between  Clemens  and  Peter,  in  legends  such  as  the  Clementines,  which  bear  the  impress 
of  being  framed  to  answer  a  certain  purpose. 

f  Frederick  Spanheim,  and  lately  Baur,  have  endeavored  to  prove  too  much  from  the 
manner  in  which  Clemens  here  expresses  himself.  See  the  acute  and  learned  discussioD 
already  referred  to  in  the  Tubinger  Zeitschrift  fur  Tkeologie,  1831,  No.  4,  p.  151. 

%  Eusebius,  ii.  25. 

§  See  page  317. 

||  The  passage  in  Dionysius  might  certainly,  with  Dr.  Schott,  in  his  "  Examination  of 
some  Chronological  Points  in  the  History  of  Paul,"  Jena,  1832,  p.  131,  be  so  understood  as 
to  remove  this  difficulty.  In  the  sentence,  bfioiu;  6e  nal  elg  rrjv  'Iraliav  6/ioae  6idd£;avrec, 
k/xaprvpT/aav  Kara  rbv  avrbv  Kaipbv,  (having  taught  in  like  manner  and  at  the  same  place 
in  Italy,  they  became  martyrs  at  about  the  same  time,)  dftooe  may  be  so  understood,  that 
only  the  equal  extension  of  the  direction  of  their  labors  to  Italy  may  be  intended  by  it ; 
but  does  not  the  repetition  of  dfioiug,  the  distinguishing  of  this  word  from  6/ioae,  and  its  com 
parison  with  the  koto,  rbv  avrbv  Kaipbv  of  the  martyrdom  of  both,  favor  another  inter* 
pretatiou  ? 


TRADITION   OF   PETER'S   VISIT  TO    ROME.  351 

sition  respecting  a  fact  not  strictly  connected  with  the  other  points,  and 
on  which  he  could  easily  obtain  certain  information  from  his  contempo- 
raries. We  have  no  sufficient  ground  to  deny  that  Dionysius,  in  what 
he  says  of  Peter's  martyrdom  at  Rome,  followed  an  ancient  credible 
tradition,  although  he  falsified  his  report  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  cir- 
cumstances with  which  he  arbitrarily  connected  it.  From  his  times,  tlrs 
account  appears  the  unanimous  tradition  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  The 
graves  of  the  two  apostles  were  pointed  out  at  Rome,  as  the  Roman 
presbyter  Caius,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  appeals  to  them ;  but 
yet  these  graves  do  not  furnish  incontestable  evidence.  When  the  report 
was  once  set  afloat,  the  designation  of  the  locality  where  the  apostles 
were  buried  would  easily  be  added.  Even  by  Caius  the  misstatement  is 
made,  that  both  the  apostles  were  the  founders  of  that  church. 

The  weight  of  this  tradition  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  its  origin 
cannot  be  easily  accounted  for,  if  it  be  not  regarded  as  historical  evi- 
dence. We  certainly  cannot  account  for  it, from  the  attempt  to  place  on 
a  sure  basis  the  authority  of  the  Cathedra  Petri  in  Rome,  for  this  tra- 
dition is  assuredly  more  ancient  than  the  attempt  to  secure  to  the 
Cathedra  Petri  at  Rome  a  decisive  authority  in  matters  of  doctrine ; 
such  an  attempt,  which  it  is  difficult  to  deduce  only  from  the  transfer- 
ence of  the  homage  paid  to  the  city,  to  the  church  of  the  city,  would 
rather  presuppose  the  existence  of  the  tradition.  Since  the  pretensions 
of  the  Roman  church  were  not  universally  acknowledged,  but  in  many 
quarters  met  with  opposition,  they  will  not  serve  to  explain  how  it  came 
to  pass,  that  such  a  tradition  designedly  propagated  by  Rome,  was  every- 
where so  favorably  received.  But  in  truth,  many  other  circumstances 
could  combine  to  give  rise  to  this  report  and  to  promote  its  circulation. 
As  Peter  concluded  his  labors  in  a  region  so  separated  from  connexion 
with  the  Roman  empire,  there  would  be  the  greater  temptation  to  fill 
up  the  gaps  of  authentic  history  by  hearsays  and  fictions.  The  practice 
of  representing  Peter  as  the  victor  over  Simon  Magus,  in  the  contest  for 
the  simple  faith  of  Revelation,  gave  rise  to  manifold  legendary  tales 
about  his  travels,  such  as  the  story  of  his  earlier  residence  in  Rome  under 
the  emperor  Claudius,  and  the  disputation  he  there  held  with  Simon. 
And  besides,  it  seemed  suitable  that  the  church  of  the  metropolis  of  the 
world  should  be  founded  by  the  two  most  distinguished  apostles,  who 
had  also  founded  the  Corinthian  church,  and  be  signalized  by  their  death ; 
it  was  also  thought  desirable  that  the  cooperation  of  the  two  apostles  in 
that  church  on  which,  as  the  church  of  the  world,  and  chief  city,  all  eyes 
were  directed,  should  be  contrasted  with  that  direct  opposition  between 
them  which  the  Judaizers,  like  the  Gnostics,  were  anxious  to  make  out. 
When,  after  the  Apocalypse  came  into  circulation,  it  was  usual  to  desig- 
nate the  imperial  city  by  the  name  of  Babylon,  as  the  stronghold  of  the 
heathenism  which  opposed  the  kingdom  of  God,  this  name,  as  it  occurred 
in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  was  naturally  applied  to  Rome,  and  thus,  too, 
an  argument  was  found  for  the  belief  of  that  apostle's  visit  to  Rome. 


352  peter's  visit  to  rome. 

Although  the  origin  of  the  story  of  the  journey  of  the  apostle  Peter 
to  Rome,  and  of  his  martyrdom  there,  may  in  this  way  be  in  some  mea- 
sure explained,  yet  the  high  antiquity  of  the  tradition,  which  can  be  traced 
back  to  the  very  boundaries  of  the  apostolic  age,  presents  an  objection  of 
no  inconsiderable  weight  to  this  hypothesis.  Papias,  the  bishop  of 
Hierapolis,*  who  appeals  to  an  oral  tradition  of  an  individual  belonging  to 
the  apostolic  age,  the  presbyter  John,  reports,  that  the  Gospel  of  Markf 
was  composed  by  the  same  person  who  accompanied  Peter  as  an  inter- 
preter, for  the  purpose  of  preserving  in  writing  what  he  had  heard  Peter 
narrate  in  his  public  addresses,^  and  what  had  been  impressed  on  his  own 
memory.  Now,  it  is  evident  that  this  account  (whether  it  relates  to  that 
Gospel  of  Mark  which  is  still  extant,  or  to  a  lost  original  document  of 
the  evangelical  history,  which  served  for  its  basis)  cannot  be  true  in  its 
full  extent ;  for  how  can  we  suppose,  that  Mark,  the  nephew  of  Barnabas, 
who  at  all  events  must  have  come  when  young  to  Jerusalem,  and  lived 
there  in  company  with  the  apostles,  could  have  first  planned  his  evan- 
gelical narrative  according  to  what  he  heard  at  a  much  later  period,  in- 
cidentally from  the  preaching  of  Peter  ?  This  account  therefore  is  sus- 
picious ;§  but  may  it  not  be  so  far  true,  that  Mark  accompanied  the 
apostle  Peter  to  Pome,  and  acted  there  as  his  interpreter,  for  those  per- 
sons who  were  familiar  only  with  the  Latin  language  ?  Yet  after  all,  it 
is  difficult  to  explain  how  such  a  belief  could  have  existed  so  early,  unless 
there  had  been  a  tradition  that  Peter  had  left  the  scene  of  his  labors  in 
the  Parthian  empire  at  a  later  period,  and  visited  Rome, — especially  since 
what  Papias  says  rests  on  the  report  of  a  man  in  the  apostolic  age.  As 
Silvanus,  the  early  travelling  companion  of  Paul,  joined  Peter  in  the  Par- 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  39. 

\  Although  the  marks  attributed  by  Papias  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  do  not  agree 
with  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us,  it  does  not  follow  that  Papias  referred 
to  another  document ;  for  in  such  a  description  of  the  qualities  of  a  book  lying  before  him, 
much  depends  on  the  subjective  judgment,  and  we  certainly  cannot  give  Papias  credit  for 
the  talent  of  acute  and  accurate  observation.  We  must  also  remember  that  he  compared 
the  Gospel  of  Mark,  not  with  our  Matthew,  but  with  another  that  formed  its  basis,  aw- 
Tay/iuruv,  %6yuv  rov  nvpcov  (collections,  words  of  the  Lord.) 

%  See  above,  p.  102. 

§  It  may  be  asked  whether  this  Mark  is  the  same  with  the  one  mentioned  by  Peter 
aa  his  son.  The  association  of  him  with  the  wife  of  Peter,  and  the  want  of  an  exact 
determination  of  the  epithet  "son,"  would  favor  our  understanding  it  in  the  proper  sense. 
And  it  is  no  ground  of  objection  to  this,  that  a  son  of  Peter  should  have  a  Roman  name, 
and  no  reason  for  its  improbability  that  he  should  greet  Christian  churches  from  his  son, 
through  the  spirit  of  fellowship  which  should  exist  among  all  Christians.  Yet  if  Peter 
himself  had  no  sons,  we  can  well  suppose  in  this  connection  that  he  points  out  one  who 
stood  to  him  in  the  place  of  a  son.  But  tradition  says,  at  least,  that  Peter  had  children. 
"For  Peter  and  Philip  begat  children,"  Jlirpoc  ftlv  yap  ml  WknTirag  eTracdonoiqaavTo. 
Clemens  Stromat.  i.  iii.  448.  But  even  if  Peter  had  other  sons  it  is  not  impossible  but 
that  he  designated  Mark  as  his  son  on  account  of  the  near  relation  in  which  he  stood  to 
him,  if  he  could  suppose  the  churches,  to  whom  he  wrote  and  to  whom  Mark  was  well 
known,  would  be  in  no  danger  of  misunderstanding  him. 


peter's  visit  to  kome.  353 

thian  empire,  so  Mark  might  likewise  remove  thither  from  Lesser  Asia, 
Coloss.  iv.  10,  and  travel  with  him  to  Rome,  even  though  he  was  not 
that  Mark  whom  Peter  mentions  in  his  first  epistle.  There  is  an  ancient 
tradition  preserved  for  us  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  that  when  Peter 
saw  his  wife  led  to  martyrdom,  he  called  out  to  her,  mentioning  her 
name,*  "  0  remember  the  Lord  !"  We  have  no  reason  for  casting  a 
doubt  on  the  truth  of  such  a  simple  tradition.  But  that  single  charac- ' 
teristic  traits  of  this  kind  in  Peter  were  handed  down  by  tradition,  agrees 
best  with  the- supposition  that  his  last  years  were  not  spent  in  the 
Parthian  empire,  between  which  and  the  Roman  there  was  little  inter- 
course. In  the  existing  circumstances  of  the  Parthian  empire  as  respects 
the  mixture  of  native  and  foreign  religions,  it  would  be  difficult  to  ac- 
count for  the  martyrdom  of  a  Christian  woman.  Hence,  we  are  led  to 
refer  it  most  naturally  to  the  effects  of  the  Neronian  persecution  at  Rome. 

*  $acl  y'  ovv  tov  fiaxdpiov  TLerpov,  deaadfievov  tt/v  clvtov  yvvacKa  uyofihriv  rrjv  tnl 
ddvarov,  f/ad^vai  (lev  ttjc  K?.Tjaeo>c  X('tPlv  [Ka"c  TW  "'?  oIkov  uvaicofudrjc]'  em$ov//oai  6e  ev 
fidXa  npooTpeTTTiKug  re  ical  'Kapaa'kjfTiKuc  ££  ovofiarog  npooeurovTa-  fiE/ivijadu  avrfj  tov  kv- 
piov.  (They  say,  therefore,  that  the  blessed  Peter,  seeing  his  wife  led  away  to  death, 
understood  from  the  summons  also  her  return  home;  that,  encouragingly  and  entreatingly 
addressing  her  by  name,  he  called  aloud,  '  Remember  the  Lord  1')  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  vii. 
[vol.  iii.  p.  253,  ed.  Klotz.  Lipsias,  1832.]  The  words  I  have  enclosed  in  brackets  are 
difficult,  whether  we  understand  by  them  that  his  wife,  before  she  was  led  to  death,  came 
home  once  more,  and  then  was  thus  addressed  by  Peter,  or,  more  naturally,  that  she  would 
be  restored  to  him  again,  being  redeemed  from  death.  Vet,  in  the  connexion,  there  are 
great  difficulties  in  either  interpretation,  and  we  must  rather  understand  the  words  of  a 
return  to  her  heavenly  home,  if  the  reading  be  correct,  and  we  should  not  (which  yet  I  do 
not  venture  to  maintain)  read  olnov  ovpdviov. 


BOOK  V. 


THE  APOSTLE  JOHN  AND  HIS  MINISTRY  AS  THE  CLOSING  POINT 
OP  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 


The  ministry  of  the  apostle  John  reaches  to  the  limits  of  the  Apostolic 
Age.  He  was  the  son  of  Zebedee,  a  fisherman  (probably  wealthy),*  in 
the  small  town  of  Bethsaida  or  Capernaum,  on  the  western  side  of  the 
Sea  of  Gennesareth  in  Galilee.  Many  eminent  men  in  all  ages,  who  have 
been  great  blessings  to  the  church,  have  been  indebted  to  their  pious 
mothers  for  the  first  incitement  of  their  dispositions  to  piety  and  the 
first  scattering  of  the  seeds  of  religion  in  their  hearts,  and  this  appears  to 
have  been  the  case  with  John.     The  manner  in  which  his  mother  Salomef 

*  As  we  may  conclude  from  Mark  i.  20. 

f  Compare  Mark  xv.  40,  xvi.  1,  and  Matt,  xxvii.  56.  If  an  opinion,  advocated  with 
great  acuteness  and  learning  by  Wieseler  in  the  Studien  und  Kriliken,  1840,  iii.p.  648, — an 
opinion  at  all  events  worthy  of  examination, — could  be  established,  it  would  show  that 
Salome  and  John  were  closely  con  nected  with  Christ  by  the  bonds  of  relationship.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  not  three  women  (as  has  hithorto  been  supposed),  but  four,  are  named 
in  John  xix.  25  ;  the  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleopas,  must  not  be  identified  with  the  sister  of 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  but  is  quite  a  different  person.  Hence  it  follows,  that  we  have  to 
search  for  the  name  of  the  remaining  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus,  which  is  not  here  given. 
Now,  since  in  Matt,  xxvii.  56,  Mark  xv.  40,  besides  Mary  of  Magdala,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  James  and  Joses  =  the  wife  of  Cleopas,  Salome  also,  or  the  mother  of  the  sons 
of  Zebedee,  is  named  as  present  at  the  crucifixion,  it  would  appear  that  the  sister  of  Marv 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  whose  name  is  not  given  by  John,  can  be  no  other  than  Salome,  his 
own  mother.  Thus  the  difficulty  of  the  same  name  belonging  to  both  sisters  is  entirely 
obviated.  It  would  also  follow  that,  in  fact,  James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  or  Cleopas,  was 
not  the  son  of  the  sister  of  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  (consequently,  not  his  cousin  ;)  and 
this  would  furnish  additional  and  valid  proof  for  our  supposition,  that  James  the  brother  of 
the  Lord  was  not  identical  with  the  apostle.  But  the  manner  in  which  (John  xix.  25)  Mary 
the  wife  of  Cleopas  is  mentioned  without  any  connective  particle,  appears  to  me  to  imply 
that  these  words  are  only  in  apposition  to  distinguish  the  (otherwise)  unnamed  sister  of 
the  mother  of  Jesus.  If  the  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus,  was  a  person  then  generally 
known  by  name,  in  the  circle  in  which  John  wrote  his  gospel,  I  could  then  more  easily 
conceive,  that,  by  that  collocation  of  the  words,  such  an  ambiguity  might  be  occasioned ; 
but  I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  supposition  is  justifiable :  and  was  it  not  to  be  expected 
from  John  that,  though  he  had  not  mentioned  the  sister  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  by  name, 


THE    APOSTLE   JOH^T.  355 

united  herself  to  the  company  which  was  formed  round  the  Saviour,  leads 
us  to  attribute  to  her  the  predominance  of  a  pious  disposition,  and  from 
the  petition  which  she  made  to  the  Redeemer,  Matt.  xx.  20,  we  may- 
conclude,  that  her  mind  was  filled  with  the  expectation  of  the  approach- 
ing manifestation  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  an  expectation  which  had 
been  so  vividly  excited  in  the  devout  part  of  the  Jewish  nation  by 
the  predictions  of  the  prophets  and  the  exigencies  of  the  age :  we 
may  therefore  imagine  how  strenuously  she  endeavored  to  inflame  her 
son's  heart  with  the  same  earnest  desire.  The  direction  thus  given 
to  the  mind  of  the  youth  impelled  him  to  join  John  the  Baptist,  by 
whose  guidance  he  was  first  led  to  the  Saviour;  John  i.  37.  In  his 
company  he  spent  several  hours,*  but  Christ  wished  not  to  bind  him 
permanently  to  himself  at  once.  He  allowed  him  to  return  for  the 
present  to  his  usual  occupation.  He  drew  him,  like  Peter,  gradually 
into  closer  communion  with  himself,  intending  in  the  first  interview 
so  to  influence  him,  that  there  should  develope  itself  from  within  a 
longing  for  a  more  intimate  connexion.  And  when  he  had  for  some 
time  been  wishful  after  an  abiding  nearness  to  Him  who  had  wrought 
with  such  power  on  his  inmost  soul,  when  the  call  at  last  was  issued, 
Matt.  iv.  22,  he  was  ready  at  once  to  forsake  all  and  follow  Him  every- 
where. What  distinguished  John  was  the  union  of  the  most  opposite 
qualities,  as  we  have  often  observed  in  great  instruments  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  kingdom  of  God, — the  union  of  a  disposition  inclined 
to  silent  and  deep  meditation,  with  an  ardent  zeal,  though  not  im- 
pelling to  great  and  diversified  activity  in  the  outward  world ;  not  a 
fiery  zeal,  such  as  we  may  suppose  filled  the  breast  of  Paul.  But  there 
was  also  a  love,  not  soft  and  yielding,  but  a  passion  that  seized  with  all  its 


he  yet  would  have  pointed  her  out  more  definitely  as  the  mother  of  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved  ?  Also,  it  does  not  seem  probable  to  me,  since  the  kinship  of  John  to  Jesus 
■would  be  so  important  for  explaining  the  early  and  peculiar  connexion  into  which  he 
entered  with  Christ,  that  no  trace  of  it  should  make  its  appearance  in  the  narrative  of 
our  gospels,  where  there  was  so  often  an  opportunity  of  mentioning  it.  The  origin  of 
later  accounts  of  so  close  a  relationship  between  the  apostle  John  and  Christ,  may  be  easily 
explained  without  the  supposition  of  an  historical  foundation. 

*  In  order  to  know  the  length  of  time  spent  by  John  in  this  first  interview  with  the 
Redeemer,  we  must  determine  the  mode  of  computing  the  hours  adopted  in  John's  Gospel. 
According  to  the  commonly  received  mode  of  reckoning,  it  could  not  have  been  more  than 
three  hours;  and  then  it  is  remarkable  that  John  should  say,  "they  abode  with  him  that 
day,"  of  which  only  so  few  hours  were  left.  On  the  contrary,  if,  like  some  of  the  older 
writers,  (see  Wolfii  Curae,  on  John  xix.  14.)  and  more  recently  Rettig  (in  the  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1830,  part  i.  p.  106),  we  suppose  that  John  adopted  the  Roman  mode  of  counting 
the  hours  from  midnight,  the  length  of  time  would  be  from  ten  in  the  morniDg  to  sun- 
set. Yet  the  words  of  John,  as  a  more  negligent  mode  of  expression,  may  be  understood 
according  to  the  common  interpretation;  and  the  passage  in  John  iv.  6,  favors  our  think- 
ing that  he  reckoned  time  in  the  usual  manner.  And,  in  itself,  it  is  more  probable  that 
the  first  impression  which  the  Redeemer  made  on  John's  mind  resulted  only  from  a  short 
interview. 


356  THE    APOSTLE   JOHN 

might,  and  firmly  retaining  the  object  to  which  it  was  directed,  abruptly 
repelled  whatever  would  disgrace  its  object,  or  attempt  to  wrest  it 
from  its  possession  ;  this  was  his  leading  characteristic.  Yet  this  love 
had  a  selfish  and  intemperate  character,  of  which  we  have  several  in- 
stances, as  when  he  wished  to  call  down  divine  judgments  on  the  Sa- 
maritans, who  had  not  shown  due  honor  to  the  Saviour;  and  when  he 
expressed  his  displeasure  that  some  persons  who  had  not  united  them- 
selves to  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  had  performed  miracles  similar  to 
their  own  by  calling  on  his  name ;  and  when  his  mother,  in  concert  with 
her  two  sons,  presented  a  petition  to  Christ  for  stations  of  eminence  in 
his  kingdom.  Probably  the  title  "  Son  of  Thunder,"  which  the  Re- 
deemer bestowed  on  him,  related  not  less  to  his  natural  temperament 
than  to  what  he  became  by  its  purification  and  transformation  in  the 
service  of  the  gospel.  But  this  ardent  love  with  which  he  devoted  him- 
self wholly  to  the  service  of  the  Redeemer,  became  now  the  purifying 
principle  of  his  whole  being,  while  he  sought  to  form  himself  on  the 
model  of  that  holy  personality.  And  hence  he  could  receive  the  image 
of  it  on  the  side  which  corresponded  with  his  peculiarly  contemplative 
mental  tendency,  and  reproduce  it  in  a  living  form. 

John  was  certainly  distinguished  from  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
in  this  respect,  that  from  the  first  his  communion  with  Christ  was  inde- 
pendently developed  on  the  peculiar  basis  of  Christian  consciousness  ; 
the  fountain  of  divine  life  which  had  appeared  among  mankind,  became 
at  once  the  central  point  of  his  spiritual  existence  :  yet  he  did  not  wholly 
agree  with  Paul,  for  his  Christian  consciousness  was  not  formed  in  direct 
opposition  to  an  earlier  and  tenaciously  held  Judaism.  His  whole  char- 
acter and  mental  formation  indisposed  him  to  such  a  development.  The 
mystical  contemplative  element  which  finds  its  archetype  in  John,  is  more 
prone  to  adopt  outward  forms  (attributing  to  them  a  spiritualized,  ele- 
vated meaning)  than  to  oppose  them,  and  John,  whom  Judaism  had  led 
to  the  Saviour  as  its  ultimate  object,  found  no  difficulty  in  employing  the 
forms  of  the  Jewish  cultus  as  the  prefiguring  symbols  of  his  Christian 
views.  From  him,  therefore,  there  could  not  proceed,  as  from  a  Paul, 
the  abolition  of  those  forms  with  which  the  Christian  spirit  was  yet  en- 
veloped.*    Though  John  (Gal.  ii.  9)  appears  as  one  of  the  three  pillars 

*  What  Polycrates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  says  of  John,  in  his  letter  to  "Victor,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  in  Euseb.  v.  24,  "  who  was  made  a  priest  and  wore  the  diadem,"  of  kyevfidr] 
tepzvq  rb  TTsrahov  TT£<pop£K<Js  is  untrue  if  taken  literally,  as  it  insinuates  something  far 
beyond  the  presumption  that  John  was  a  faithful  observer  of  the  Jewish  law  so  long  as  he 
remained  at  Jerusalem.  It  would  follow  that  he  had  held  the  office  of  High  Priest  among 
the  Jews,  for  this  TreraTiov  =  antri  y^s,  the  golden  front-plate,  was  one  of  the  distinctive 
insignia  of  his  office.  Such  a  presumption  would,  however,  be  in  contradiction  to  history 
and  all  historical  analogy.  Nor  can  Polycrates  himself,  however  credulous  we  may  think 
him  to  have  been,  have  meant  it.  It  is  moreover  clear  from  the  context,  that  he  affirms 
of  John  only  such  things  as  would  be  consistent  with  John's  Christian  convictions.  Or,  aro 
we  to  assume  that  John,  as  the  President  of  all  the  Christian  communities  in  Lesser  As  ia, 


IN   LESSER    ASIA.  357 

of  the  church  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  yet  it  never  happened  that 
they  appealed  to  him  as  to  Peter  and  James  ;  but  it  may  be  explained 
from  the  peculiar  views  and  character  of  this  apostle,  and  serves  to  set 
in  a  clear  light  his  relation  to  the  contending  parties.  Hence  also  we 
gather,  that  though  John  had  formed  a  scheme  of  doctrine  so  decidedly 
marked,  and  though  in  relation  to  the  other  great  publishers  of  the  gos- 
pel, he  might  have  formed  a  party  who  would  have  attached  themselves 
particularly  to  him,  and  principally  or  exclusively  have  valued  his  idea 
of  Christianity,  yet  in  the  Pauline  age,  we  see  no  Johannean  party  come 
forward  by  the  side  of  the  Jacobean,  the  Petrine,  and  the  Pauline.  The 
peculiar  doctrinal  type  of  John  was  also  of  a  kind  little  suited  to  find 
acceptance  with  the  peculiar  tendencies  of  the  Jewish  Christians  in 
Palestine,  and  its  influence  would  be  more  powerfully  felt,  where  a 
Christian  element  had  already  combined  itself  with  the  form  of  the  Gre- 
cian mind. 

Thus  John  disappears  from  public  history,  till  he  was  led  by  the 
divine  call  to  other  regions,  where  the  minds  of  the  people  were  already 
prepared  for  his  peculiar  influence,  and  where  the  deep  traces  of  his 
operations,  undeniable  to  every  one  capable  of  historical  investigations, 
were  still  visible  far  into  the  second  century.  After  the  martyrdom  of 
Paul,  the  bereaved  scene  of  his  labors,  so  important  for  the  development 
and  spread  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  exposed  to  so  many  polluting 
and  destructive  influences,  required  above  all  things  the  guiding,  pro- 
tecting, and  healing  hand  of  apostolic  wisdom.  The  Epistle  of  Peter  to 
the  churches  in  that  region,  and  the  journey  of  Sylvanus  thither,  show 
how  much  this  necessity  was  felt.  It  is' probable,  that  John  was  called 
upon  by  the  better  part  of  the  churches,  to  transfer  the  seat  of  his  ac- 
tivity to  this  quarter.  All  the  ancient  traditions,  which  may  be  traced 
back  to  his  immediate  disciples,  agree  in  stating  that  Lesser  Asia  was 
the  scene  of  his  labors  to  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and  Ephesus  its 
central  point. 

The  constitution  of  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia,  as  it  appeared  soon 
after  the  age  of  John,  in  the  time  of  Polycarp  bishop  of  Smyrna,  was  alto- 
gether different  from  that  which  originated  in  the  Pauline  age,  in  which 
these  churches  were  founded,  and  we  are  obliged  to  presuppose  some  in- 
tervening influences  by  which  this  alteration  was  produced.  Originally 
these  churches  formed,  as  we  have  seen  above,  a  pure  opposition  against 


adopted,  as  a  symbolical  token  of  his  position  in  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  the  insignia 
of  the  Jewish  High  Priest?  This  would  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  apostolic,  and 
especially  the  Johannean  views,  for  these  included  the  acknowledgment  of  the  sole  high- 
priesthood  of  Christ,  and  the  universal  priesthood  of  all  believers  founded  upon  it.  Poly- 
srates,  therefore,  could  have  said  this  of  John  only  with  a  symbolical  reference,  whether 
he  intended  to  denote  by  it  what  he  had  suffered  for  the  confession  of  the  Christian  faii'u, 
or  the  place  which  he  occupied  at  the  head  of  the  guidance  of  the  church.  Just  as  the  High 
Priest's  costume  has  a  symbolical  meaning  in  the  Testament  of  the  Patriarchs.  The  Testa- 
ment of  Levi,  iii.  8  :    TleraXov  rr/s  nlareug. 


358  THE    APOSTLE   JOHN'S 

the  Jewish-Christian  form  of  cultus.  They  had,  at  most,  no  other  day 
than  Sunday  devoted  to  religious  celebration,*  no  kind  of  yearly  feast ; 
but  afterwards  we  find  among  them  a  paschal  feast  transferred  from  the 
Jews,  and  receiving  a  Christian  meaning,  though  imitating  the  Jewish 
reckoning  as  to  the  time  of  its  celebration,  to  which  probably  a  feast  of 
Pentecost  was  annexed,  and  in  their  disputes  with  the  Roman  church 
they  appealed  particularly  to  a  tradition  originating  with  this  apostle. 
Now  we  can  readily  imagine  that  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan,f  on  which  he  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
would  excite  a  deep  interest  in  his  Christian  feelings.  It  is  self-evident 
how  those  Jewish  feasts,  which  had  gained  a  new  importance  for  him  by 
their  association  with  those  great  facts  of  the  Christian  faith  of  which  he 
had  been  an  eye-witness,  and  which  he  had  been  wont  to  celebrate  with 
Christian  devotion,  might  be  introduced  by  him  into  these  churches 
founded  on  Pauline  principles. J 

*  See  page  159. 

•(•  The  Gospel  to  which  Polycrates  appeals  in  Eusebius,  v.  24,  may  certainly  be  that  of 
John ;  see  remarks  on  this  in  my  Life  of  Christ,  p.  385. 

\  But  when  Schwegler,  from  the  obscure  expressions  of  Polycrates  quoted  above,  deduces 
the  fact  that  John  had  assumed  the  high-priest's  dress  as  overseer-general  of  the  churches 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  then,  again  concludes,  what  on  such  a  supposition  would  be  a  fair  in- 
ference, that  one  who  thus  acted  and  placed  himself  in  such  a  relation  to  Judaism,  could 
not  be  the  author  of  the  Gospel  under  his  name — he  adopts  a  method,  according  to  which 
it  is  only  requisite  to  find  proofs  for  a  system  formed  on  arbitrary  assumptions  and  combi- 
nations, and  according  to  which  all  separate  traditions  are  only  so  far  to  be  thought  credi- 
ble, as  they  serve  to  support  such  a  system.  This  single  feature  is  literally  adhered  to, 
though  it  stands  in  contradiction  to  everything  else  we  know  of  that  age.  Where  can  we 
find  anything  bearing  an  analogy  to  it,  unless  something  isolated  in  the  uncritical  and 
credulous  Epiphanius?  It  may  indeed  be  admitted  that  the  Christian  feasts  became 
changed  into  the  Jewish ;  for  this  there  was  a  medium  in  the  spiritualization  of  the  Old 
Testament  Theocracy  proceeding  from  Christianity.  But  it  was  altogether  different  with 
the  priesthood.  The  principles  of  Christianity  connect  themselves  with  the  idea  of  a  priest- 
hood only  so  far,  that  Christ  is  regarded  as  the  only  High  Priest,  and  the  universal  priest- 
hood of  all  believers  is  derived  from  him ;  hence  no  such  relation  can  be  found  as  that 
which  existed  on  the  theory  and  method  of  the  Old  Testament  cultus — {vide  pp.  135,  156). 
Moreover,  as  Christianity  still  moved  in  the  forms  of  Judaism,  the  principle  of  Christ's 
priesthood  was  employed  in  the  formation  of  church  relations.  The  position  of  James 
among  the  Jewish  Christians  cannot  here  bo  adduced  as  a  proof  of  John's  position,  but  goes 
rather  to  establish  the  opposite ;  for  great  as  was  the  reverence  in  which  he  was  held,  we 
find  no  trace  of  his  being  invested  with  anything  like  the  Jewish  priesthood.  For  even 
Hegesippus  is  far  from  placing  him  in  such  a  relation  to  the  Christian  church,  although 
from  his  ascetic,  Ebionitish  proclivities — which  we  are  by  no  means  justified  in  making 
identical  with  those  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  cannot  ascribe  even  to  Polycrates — he 
says,  that  James  in  virtue  of  his  sanctity  wore  not  a  woolen,  but  a  linen  garment  like  a 
priest,  and  that  in  virtue  of  this  priestly  sanctity  he  alone  was  allowed  to  go  into  the  holy 
place  of  the  Temple.  (Tovtu  /iupu)  i&jv  eic  ru  uyin  elauvac,  ovdi  yup  kpeovv  tyspei,  uXkd. 
oivdovac. — Euseb.  ii.  23.)  "With  all  its  Jewish  coloring,  the  idea  of  the  universal  Christian 
priesthood  is  the  only  one  brought  forward  in  the  Apocalypse.  In  The  Testament  of  the 
twelve  Patriarchs,  which  has  so  strong  a  Jewish  impress,  the  view  predominates  that  Christ 
is  the  true   High  Priest  who  has  made  an  end  of  the  Old  Testament  priesthood.      (I.  6 


LABORS   IN   LESSER   ASIA.  359 

From  the  state  of  the  church  at  that  time  in  these  parts,  it  may  be 
concluded  that  John  must  have  had  to  endure  many  conflicts,  both  from 
within  and  without,  in  his  new  field  of  labor.  After  the  signal  had  once 
been  given  under  Nero  for  public  attacks  on  the  Christians,  persecutions 
were  carried  on  in  various  parts.  In  Lesser  Asia,  many  circumstances 
combined,  then  as  in  later  times,  to  excite  a  more  vehement  persecution ; 
fanatical  zeal  for  the  ancient  idolatry — the  danger  which  threatened  the 
pecuniary  interests  of  those  who  in  some  Way  were  gainers  by  the  popu- 
lar worship,  from  the  rapid  progress  of  Christianity — the  hatred  of  the 
Jews  widely  scattered  through  Lesser  Asia,  who  blasphemed  Chris- 
tianity, and  stirred  up  the  heathen  populace  against  it.  Hence  in  the 
Apocalypse  the  rebukes  uttered  against  the  synagogues  of  Satan,  against 
those  who  "say  they  are  Jews,  but  are  not  and  do  lie;"  Rev.  ii.  9.  The 
civil  wars  and  the  universal  misery  that  followed,  contributed  still  more 
to  excite  the  popular  fury  against  the  enemies  of  the  gods,  to  whom  they 
readily  ascribed  the  origin  of  all  their  misfortunes.  Thus,  indeed,  the 
Apocalypse  testifies  (which  was  probably  written  in  the  first  .period  after 
John's  arrival  in  Lesser  Asia)  throughout,  of  the  flowing  blood  of  the 
martyrs,  and  of  the  tribulation  which  threatened  Christians  in  prison,  as 
well  as  of  the  fresh  recollections  of  Nero's  cruelties.  In  the  churches 
themselves,  those  conflicts  continued  which  we  noticed  at  the  close  of 
the  Pauline  age,  and  the  seeds  of  discord  and  heresy  then  germinating 
had  now  sprung  up  and  advanced  towards  maturity.  Falsifiers  of  the 
the  original  truth,  who  gave  themselves  out  for  apostles,  had  come 
forth ;  Rev.  ii.  2.*     To  the  inspiration  of  genuine  Christianity  had  at- 

Mexpi  re?,ei6(jeo)c  XP°V0)V  upxieptuc  Xpiarov.)  From  him  a  new  priesthood  was  to  go  forth 
among  the  Gentiles,  which  may  probably  be  understood  of  the  universal  priesthood  estab- 
lished by  him,  though  we  cannot  with  certainty  decide  on  the  sense  of  the  passage.  (L.  c. 
9,  Uoirjaei  lepareiav  veav  Karu  tov  tvtcov  tuv  hdvuv  etc  Truvra  to,  tdvrj.)  If  John  had  thus 
applied  the  high  priesthood  to  the  Christian  church,  what  a  powerful  influence  it  would 
have  exerted  in  modifying  its  constitution,  and  how  much  earlier  would  the  Hierarchical 
element  have  been  diffused  I  Manifold  traces  of  so  early  a  transference  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament conceptions  to  the  government  of  the  Christian  church,  must  everywhere  have 
met  us.  What  was  not  developed  till  the  third  century,  must  have  appeared  as  the 
original  arrangement.  We  see  indeed,  afterwards,  a  Jewish  hierarchical  element  internally 
developed  in  conflict  with  the  original  Christian  consciousness.  But  it  is  quite  uuhistori- 
cal  to  attempt  deducing  from  that  ancient  Ebionitism,  which  belongs  to  a  totally  different 
stage  of  development,  this  new  form  of  the  Jewish  spirit,  which  arose  of  itself,  after  the 
Jewish  position  had  been  long  overthrown,. and  Christianity  had  attained  an  independent 
development.  To  apply  to  every  mixture  of  Judaism  and  Christianity  the  common  nam« 
of  Ebionitism,  and  distinguish  it  into  various  kinds  and  stages  of  development,  must  inev- 
itably lead  to  the  worst  perversions  of  history. 

*  We  find  no  justification  whatever  for  asserting,  with  Schwegler,  that  these  words 
refer  to  Paul,  and  in  concluding  that  in  Lesser  Asia  an  Ebionitish  spirit  prevailed,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  apostolic  authority  of  Paul.  The  disapprobation  here  expressed  is  directed 
not  against  one,  but  against  several.  Of  what  kind  these  were,  we  must  learn  from  the 
subsequent  contents  of  the  Apocalyptic  Epistles,  and  by  examination  of  these  we  shall  le 
led  to  the  wholly  opposite  conclusion  mentioned  in  the  text.  Schwegler  adduces  in  proof 
of  his  explanation   the  words  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  9 ;  according  to  this,  we  must  suppose 


SCO  TUE    NICOLAITANES. 

tached  various  wild  extravagances  which  Paul  had  foreseen  and  against 
which  he  had  already  raised  a  warning  voice.  Pretended  prophets  and 
prophetesses  had  arisen,  who,  under  the  appearance  of  divine  illumina- 
tion, threatened  to  plunge  the  churches  into  errors  both  theoretical  and 
practical ;  1  John  iv.  1 ;  Rev.  ii.  20.     - 

In  Lesser  Asia,  the  most  opposite  deviations  from  the  genuine  evan- 
gelical spirit  sprang  up  together.  On  the  one  side,  the  Judaizing  ten- 
dency, as  we  have  noticed  it  in  the  Pauline  age ;  on  another  side,  in  op- 
position to  it,  the  tendency  of  an  arrogant  sensual  desire  of  freedom, 
such  as  we  have  noticed  in  the  freethinkers  of  the  Corinthian  church,* 
only  carried  to  greater  lengths  and  more  daring  results,  and  mingled 
probably  with  many  theoretical  errors ;  persons  who  taught  that  who- 
ever penetrated  into  the  depths  of  knowledge, f  need  no  longer  submit  to 
the  apostolic  ordinances,  as  he  would  be  free  from  all  the  slavery  of  the 
law,  which  freedom  they  understood  in  a  carnal  sense,  and  misinterpreted 
to  an  immoral  purpose.  Such  a  one  need  no  longer  fear  the  contact 
with  heathenism  or  with  the  kingdom  of  Satan ;  in  the  consciousness  of 
his  own  mental  strength  he  could  despise  all  temptations,  partake  of  the 
meat  offered  to  idols,  and  indulge  in  sensual  pleasures  without  being  in- 
jured thereby.  In  the  Apocalypse  these  people  are  called  Nicolaitanes, 
either  because  they  were  really  the  adherents  of  a  certain  Nicolaus,J 
and  that  this  name,  as  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  D*>s,  occasioned  an 
allusion  to  the  meaning  of  the  name,  and  a  comparison  with  Balaam,  or 
that  the  name,  a  pure  invention,  was  used  by  the  author  to  denote  sym- 
bolically a  seducer  of  the  people  like  Balaam.  The  opposition  against  this 

that  the  Judaizing  party,  of  whom  Paul  speaks  in  that  passage,  had  at  last  obtained  the 
victory  in  the  Ephesian  church,  and  on  that  account  were  praised  by  the  author  in  that 
epistle.  But  this  is  a  manifest  perversion  of  the  words ;  for  according  to  the  connexion, 
they  relate  only  to  the  enemies  of  Christianity  generally.  Rather,  in  that  passage,  the 
name  of  false  apostles  is  used  to  designate  false  teachers  who  aimed  at  being  held  in  great 
repute,  as  in  2  Cor.  xi.  9,  where  no  one  who  pays  attention  to  the  connexion  will  think 
of  the  earlier  apostles. 

*  See  page  232. 

f  Rev.  ii.  24,  they  are  described  as  those  "  who  have  not  known  the  depths  of  Satan, 
as  they  speak,"  octlvec  ovk  lyvucav  tu  (3adea  rov  aar'avu,  <if  leyovaiv.  But  a  doubt  here 
arises,  whether  these  persons  made  it  their  peculiar  boast  that  they  knew  the  depths  of 
the  Deity,  but  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse,  a3  if  in  mockery  of  their  pretensions,  substi- 
tutes for  the  depths  of  the  Deity  the  depths  of  Satan  (as  Bwald  thinks), — (for  which  inter- 
petration  the  analogy  may  be  adduced  where  the  synagogue  of  God  is  converted  into  the 
synagogue  of  Satan) ; — or  whether  they  really  boasted  that  they  knew  the  depths  of  Satan, 
and  hence  could  tell  how  to  combat  Satan  aright,  that  they  could  conquer  him  by  pride 
and  contempt, — that  they  could  indulge  in  sensual  pleasures,  and  maintain  the  composure 
of  their  spirit  unaltered, — that  the  inner  man  might  attain  such  strength  that  it  was  no 
longer  moved  by  what  weaker  souls,  who  were  still  under  the  servitude  of  the  law  and  to 
whom  the  power  of  Satan  was  so  fearful,  anxiously  shunned, — and  thus  could  put  Satau 
to  scorn  even  in  his  own  domains. 

%  On  no  supposition  are  we  justified  in  confounding  this  Nicolaus  with  the  well-known 
deacon  of  this  name.  But  on  the  supposition  named,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  Nicolai* 
tanes  of  the  secoud  century  originated  from  this  sect 


THE   JUDAIZING    GNOSTICS.  361 

germinating,  Gnostic  Antinomianism  must  have  called  for  the  most  scru- 
pulous adherence  to  the  decrees  of  the  apostolic  convention  at  Jerusa- 
lem. The  greater  freedom  which  the  apostle  Paul  had  approved  in 
theory,  here  took  so  mischievous  an  Antinomian  direction,  as  to  throw 
suspicion  on  that  freedom  itself.  Thus  in  the  whole  of  the  following 
age,  the  unscrupulous  eating  of  the  flesh  offered  in  sacrifices  was  re- 
garded as  a  mark  of  Gnostic  Antinomianism.* 

With  these  practical  errors  were  connected  various  theoretic  tenden- 
cies of  a  false  gnosis,  which,  in  mutual  conflict  with  one  another,  had  ex- 
tended more  widely  since  the  close  of  the  Pauline  age.  We  have  noticed  in 
the  church  at  Colossre  the  adherents  of  a  Judaizing  gnosis,  who  probably 
set  a  high  value  on  Judaism  as  a  revelation  from  God  communicated  by 
angels,  attached  a  perpetual  value  to  it  as  well  as  to  Christianity,  and 
pretended  that  they  possessed  peculiar  information  respecting  the  various 
classes  of  angels.  To  this  Jewish  angel-worship,  Paul  opposes  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  one  head  of  the  church  of  God,  on 
whom  angels  also  are  dependent,  the  common  head  of  that  universal  church 
to  which  men  and  angels  belong.  He  extols  him  as  the  being  who  has 
triumphed  over  all  the  powers  which  would  make  man  dependent  on  them- 
selves, over  all  the  powers  that  set  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  king- 
dom of  God,  so  that  men  need  no  longer  fear  them.  From  the  subordina- 
tion of  these  powers  he  then  infers  the  high  dignity  and  freedom  of  the  re- 
deemed through  Christ,  the  children  of  God,  who  are  become  companions 
of  angels  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  this  elevated  doctrine  of  the  dig- 
nity and  freedom  of  Christians  was  perverted  by  those  who  confronted 
the  limited  Jewish  conceptions  by  a  bold  Antinomian  gnosis,  and  affirmed 
that  Judaism  was  to  be  despised  as  the  work  of  limited  spirits  ;  that  the 
6ons  of  God  were  more  than  these  spirits  and  exalted  above  their  maxims. 
They  thought  themselves  sufficiently  exalted  to  scorn  these  higher  powers, 
and  to  ridicule  all  law  as  a  work  of  these  limited  and  limiting  powers. 
With  this  was  connected  that  reckless  immoral  tendency  which  we  have 
before  noticed,  and  which  presented  itself  in  opposition  to  the  legal  as- 
ceticism which  we  find  connected  with  the  Judaizing  gnosis  in  the  church 
at  Colossae.     This  is  the  tendency  which  is  combated  on  the  side  of  its 

*  In  this  way  we  can  account  for  it  that  Justin  Martyr,  who,  by  Baur  and  his 
school,  is  set  down  as  an  EbioDite,  although  we  cannot  mistake  in  him  the  influence 
of  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Pauline  epistles  and  of  the  Gospel  of  John  opposes  those 
who  maintained  that  the  eating  of  flesh  offered  in  sacrifice  was  harmless.  And  we  know  not 
how  Schwegler  (L  p.  175)  can  find  in  the  passage  referring  to  the  subject  in  Dial.  c.  Tryph. 
f.  253,  ed.  Colon,  an  attack  on  the  adherents  of  the  Pauline  doctrine,  or  a  mode  of  thinking 
directed  against  the  apostle  Paul  himself.  If  it  is  to  be  concluded  that  what  Justin  says 
contradicts  Pauline  principles,  and  that  he  himself,  consciously  and  designedly,  was  an 
opponent  of  Paul,  then  many  of  the  Fathers  who  often  cite  Paul,  must  be  regarded  as 
anti- Pauline  Ebionites.  But  this  construction  can  with  less  reason  be  put  on  that  passage, 
since  Justin,  in  the  words  that  follow  soon  after,  but  which  are  not  quoted  by  Schwegler, 
shows  against  whom  he  is  speaking,  namely,  the  Gnostics. 


362  THE    JUDAIZING   GNOSTICS. 

blended  theoretical  and  practical  errors,  in  the  warning  Epistle  of  Jude, 
addressed  probably  to  the  Christians  in  these  parts.*  We  see  here  how, 
from  the  Pauline  ideas  carried  out  with  one-sided  extravagance  and  thus 
distorted  into  error,  the  gnostic  doctrine  was  educed  of  the  opposition 
between  Christianity  as  the  revelation  of  the  Son,  and  Judaism  as  the 
revelation  of  the  Demiurgus  and  his  angels.  These  two  opposite  tenden- 
cies of  gnosis  developed  themselves  in  this  age  in  various  minglings  and 
transitions. 

The  Judaizing  gnosis  found  its  representative  in  Cerinthus,  who  forms 
the  transition  both  from  the  common,  stiff,  carnal  Judaism  to  Gnosticism, 
and  from  the  common  limited  Jewish  mode  of  thinking,  which  retained 
only  the  human  in  Christ,  to  the  gnostic  which  acknowledged  only  the 
Divine  in  him,  only  the  ideal  Christ.f  He  agreed  also  with  the  common 
Jewish  view  of  the  Messiah  in  this  respect,  that  he  considered  Jesus  as  a 
mere  man,  that  he  denied  the  original  indwelling  of  the  divine  Being  in 
him,  and  treated  the  entrance  of  the  Divine  into  his  life  as  something 
sudden,  by  which,  at  his  solemn  inauguration,  he  was  made  capable  of 
discharging  his  calling  as  the  Messiah.  But  Cerinthus  differed  from  the 
common  Jewish  notions,  in  that,  in  place  of  a  peculiar  inworking  of  the 
divine  power,  by  which  the  man  Jesus  wras  fitted  for  his  Messianic  office, 

*  This  is,  for  the  most  part,  the  view  developed  by  Scbneckenburger  in  his  work 
before  mentioned.  As  to  the  author  of  this  epistle,  he  evidently  distinguishes  himself  from 
the  apostles,  when  he  speaks  of  the  prophetic  warnings  of  the  apostles  (v.  17),  such  as  we 
certainly  find  in  Paul's  writings ;  we  cannot  explain  the  passage  otherwise  without  doing 
violence  to  it.  The  description  of  the  state  of  the  church  is  also  such  as  suits  only  the  end 
of  the  apostolic  age.  It  is  therefore  evident,  that,  if  the  epistle  be  genuine,  it  cannot  have 
been  written  by  an  apostle  Jude,  who  was  a  brother  of  James.  It  would  likewise  have 
been  more  natural  in  this  case,  to  have  designated  himself  an  apostle,  instead  of  calling 
himself  a  brother  of  James.  Hence  we  should  rather  suppose  him  to  have  been  Jude,  one 
of  the  brethren  of  the  Lord.  But  why  should  he  not  call  himself  a  brother  of  the  Lord, 
instead  of  "brother  of  James,"  since  the  designation  was  for  the  very  purpose  of  adding 
weight  to  his  warnings  through  personal  authority.  It  may  be  said  that  he  omitted  this 
title  through  humility.  But  is  this  answer  satisfactory  ?  By  the  addition  of  various  epithets, 
as  brother  according  to  the  flesh,  cl<5e/l0df  Kara  oupna,  and  servant  of  Jesus  Christ 
according  to  the  Spirit,  6ovXoq  'l-qaov  Xpiorov  Kara  irveviia,  he  might  have  prevented  all 
misunderstanding,  and  removed  all  appearance  of  arrogance.  A  similar  objection  may 
indeed  be  made  in  reference  to  James,  who,  in  his  epistle,  does  not  designate  himself  a 
brother  of  the  Lord.  But  here  the  case  is  altogether  different.  James  does  not  distinguish 
himself  by  any  epithet  expressive  of  consanguinity, — not  out  of  humility  but  because  he 
deemed  it  to  be  the  highest  honor  to  be  a  servant  of  God  and  of  Christ.  "We  may  suppose 
another  Jude  as  well  as  another  James,  since  the  name  Jude  was  so  frequent  among  the 
Jews,  and  since,  according  to  Hegesippus,  there  were  many  distinguished  men  of  this  name 
in  the  church.  But  as  the  epithet  "  brother  of  James"  is  used  here  as  a  distinction,  it  is 
most  natural  to  refer  it  to  that  James  who  was  held  in  such  high  esteem.  It  might  be 
said  that  he  described  himself  only  as  the  brother  of  James,  because  James  was  so  pre- 
eminent, and  was  accustomed  to  be  designated  as  a  brother  of  the  Lord.  But  the  manner 
in  which  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  the  brethren  of  Christ  are  named  together,  does 
Dot  favor  this  view  of  the  matter. 

f  See  my  Church  History,  voL  i.  p.  396. 


DOCETISM.  363 

he  supposed  a  new  animation  by  the  highest  Spirit  emanating  from  God, 
and  forming  the  connexion  between  God  and  the  Creation,  the  divine 
Logos.  This  Spirit,  representing  itself  in  sensible  appearance  under  the 
form  of  a  Dove,  as  a  usual  symbol  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  had  settled  upon 
him  at  his  baptism  ;  he  had  revealed  through  him  the  hidden  Supreme 
God,  the  knowledge  of  whom  among  the  Jews  had  been  the  privilege  of 
only  a  small  number  of  enlightened  persons,*  through  him  he  had  per- 
formed miracles,  but  before  the  last  sufferings  of  Jesus  had  withdrawn 
from  him,  and  left  him  to  himself.  As  Cerinthus  in  this  manner  held  no 
original  and  indissoluble  unity  between  the  Logos  (the  Messiah  and  Re- 
deemer in  a  special  sense)  and  the  Humanity  of  Jesus,  but  only  a  tran- 
sient relation,  a  connexion  suddenly  formed  and  as  suddenly  dissolved, 
he  thus  granted  only  a  very  subordinate  place  to  the  purely  human  in 
Christ.  According  to  this  view,  the  man  Jesus  was  only  an  accidental 
vehicle,  of  which  the  redeeming  Spirit,  the  Logos,  made  use,  in  order  to 
be  able  to  reveal  himself  in  humanity  ;  could  the  Logos  without  this 
medium  have  made  himself  cognisable  and  perceptible  to  men,  he  would 
not  have  made  use  of  such  an  organ  as  the  man  Jesus.  From  the  same 
tendency,  but  more  rudely  presented,  proceeded  another  view,  according 
to  which  it  was  believed,  that  a  revelation  of  the  Logos  might  be  made 
in  humanity  without  any  such  mediation  as  a  human  existence,  which  it 
was  Avished  to  dispense  with.  In  place  of  the  real  human  appearance  oi 
Christ,  only  a  semblance,  a  phantom  was  substituted  in  which  the  Logos 
was  enshrined.  Everything  that  came  under  the  notice  of  the  senses  was 
explained  as  only  a  phantom,  an  optical  illusion,  of  which  the  higher 
ethereal  Being,  who  from  his  nature  could  not  be  perceptible  to  the 
senses,  made  use,  that  he  might  manifest  himself  to  sensuous  mortals.  A 
theory  which  already  had  been  used  for  the  explanation  of  theophanies 
and  angelophanies  in  the  Old  Testament,!  was  applied  by  those  who 
held  these  views  to  the  appearance  and  life  of  Christ.  At  his  transfigura- 
tion, said  they,  Christ  manifested  himself,  without  that  sensible  appear- 
ance, to  his  disciples,  who  were  rendered  for  the  time  capable  of  behold- 
ing him  in  his  true  ethereal  form.J 

*  The  genuine  depanevTat. 

\  As,  for  example,  Philo  on  Exod.  xxiv.,  where  the  subject  is  the  appearance  of  the 
divine  "  glory,"  66^a,  which  may  be  understood  partly  of  the  appearance  of  the  angels  by 
whom  God  revealed  himself,  partly  of  the  symbolical  appearances  under  which  God  repre- 
sented himself  to  the  perceptions  of  men ;  ry  Sonrjoet  avrov  /uovov  ical  v-rro'krjypei  66^ 
Oeiac,  (if  iveipyuaOat  ralg  tuv  napovruv  6iavoiaic  (pavraaiav  a^t'fewf  deov,  wf  tjkovto^  e'lc 
^ejiaioTaTTjv  mariv  tuv  fieXAovruv  vofioderelodai,  (in  order  that  men  might  have  the  firm 
conviction  that  what  was  revealed  to  them  proceeded  from  God,  he  therefore  so  oper- 
ated on  their  consciousness,  that  they  believed  that  they  saw  Himself.)  Toy  deov  deiKvvv- 
toc  oirep  r0ov2.€To  doneiv  elvai,  npoc  rf/v  tuv  deu/ievuv  KaTdrrXTj^iv,  fir)  uv  tovto  oirep 
iipaivero  (God  shewed  what  he  chose  to  seem  to  be,  for  the  amazement  of  beholders,  not 
being  that  which  he  appeared.) — Philonis  Opera,  ed.  Lips.  1829,  vol  vi.  p.  245. 

\  A  pure  spiritual  intuition  was  something  wholly  foreign  to  such  persons.  Light  and 
fcpirit  were  one  and  the  same  thing  to  them  I 


364  CERINTHUS. 

Against  such  persons  John  was  now  called  to  defend  the  announce* 
ment  of  "  Jesus  Christ  in  the  flesh."  We  have  no  reason  for  calling  in 
question  the  traditious  respecting  his  conflicts  with  Cerinthus.  Irenoeus, 
amongst  others,  mentions  as  an  account  given  by  the  aged  Polycarp,  that 
on  one  occasion  when  John  was  about  to  bathe,  and  heard  that  Cerinthus 
was  in  the  bathing-house  ;  he  retired  with  abhorrence,  and  exclaimed, 
"  Surely  the  house  will  fall  in  ruins,since  the  enemy  of  the  truth  is  there  !" 
We  can  perfectly  reconcile  it  with  his  character,  and  find  in  it  nothing 
unapostolic,  if,  in  a  momentary  ebullition  of  feelings  naturally  lively  and 
ardent,*  proceeding  from  holy  zeal,  he  expressed  in  such  strong  terms  (in 
which,  nevertheless,  everything  is  not  to  be  taken  quite  literally)  his  dis- 
pleasure against  a  man  who  threatened  to  rob  the  churches,  over  whose 
salvation  he  was  watching  with  fatherly  care,  of  what  was  dearest  and 
holiest  to  him, the  foundation  on  which  his  whole  Christianity  rested,  and 
to  destroy  the  root  of  the  Christian  life  ;  still  the  pledge  for  the  credibility 
of  this  anecdote  is  very  slight,  and  it  may  be  easily  attributed  to  an  ex- 
travagant hatred  of  heretics. f  But  the  antagonism  of  the  Apostle  John 
and  Cerinthus,  is,  in  any  case  an  undeniable  fact,  and  only  the  greatest 
arbitrariness  could  place  Cerinthus  in  another  relation  to  John,  namely, 
make  out  of  him  the  representative  of  a  spirit  akin  to  that  of  the 
Apostle.J 

According  to  a  widely  spread,  ancient  tradition,  the  Apostle  John  was 

*  We  must  not  allow  ourselves  to  imagine,  that  the  apostle,  by  the  sanctifying  in- 
fluence of  the  Divine  Spirit,  was  at  once  dissevered  from  all  connexion  with  his  former 
natural  character,  as  well  as  from  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  his  countrymen  ;  we  must, 
with  Jerome,  recognise  in  the  apostle,  homo  adhuc  vasculo  clausus  inflrmo,  (a  man  inclosed 
as  yet  in  an  imperfect  vessel). 

f  Ireuaeus  did  not  receive  this  account  in  his  youth  from  the  lips  of  Polycarp,  but 
could  only  appeal  for  the  truth  of  it  to  what  others  had  heard  from  Polycarp,  iii.  3,  elalv 
ol  ukt]ko6t£c  clvtov.  The  question  then  is,  whether  the  persons  who  reported  it  to  Irenseus 
are  trustworthy.  We  know,  indeed,  that  much  of  what  Irenseus  reports  as  tradition,  bears 
on  it  the  impress  of  falsehood.  Thus  he  himself,  ii.  24,  appeals  to  the  testimony  of  all  the 
presbyters  in  Lesser  Asia,  who  had  been  in  the  society  of  the  apostle  John,  that  Jesus  wag 
about  fifty  years  old.  The  difficulty  involved  in  this,  does  not  appear  to  me  so  easily 
removed  as  Credner  maintains  in  his  Einleitung,  p.  215.  The  tradition  of  the  presbyters, 
according  to  the  report  of  Irenseus,  certainly  appears  not  to  have  been  that  Jesus  first 
entered  on  his  office  as  teacher  at  the  commencement  of  that  riper  mature  age,  which  was 
required  by  the  Jewish  customs  for  assuming  such  an  office,  but  he  received  from  their 
own  lips  Mie  deposition  that  Christ  had  taught  at  an  age  which  was  beyond  the  cetas  juve- 
nilis, and  approached  to  the  senilis.  If  the  passage  is  genuine  in  all  its  extent,  he  ex- 
pressly distinguished  this  age  from  the  cetas  perfecta  magestri,  which  was  well  known  to 
him,  in  which  Christ  first  appeared  in  Jerusalem  as  a  teacher.  From  his  words,  there- 
fore, we  must  deduce  such  a  tradition  as  he  supposed  he  had  received  from  the  pres- 
byters. But  we  can  hardly  suppress  the  suspicion  of  interpolation ;  for  however  little 
we  are  justified  in  depending  on  the  critical  judgment  of  Irenseus,  we  cannot  reconcile 
it  to  a  man  of  his  powerful  mind,  that  he,  who  had  shortly  before  said  that  Christ  had  spent 
three  years,  from  the  beginning  of  his  thirtieth  year  to  his  death,  in  his  office  of  teaching, 
could  afterwards  attribute  twenty  years  more  to  him. 

J  As  Schwegler  has  done,  II.  p.  259. 


John's  banishment.  365 

banished  to  the  island  of  Patmos,  in  the  iEgean  Sea,  by  one  of  the  em* 
perors  who  was  hostile  to  the  Christians,  but  which  of  them  is  not  ascer- 
tained.* Only  Irenseue  leads  us  to  suppose  that  Domitian  was  the  em- 
peror, for  he  saysf  that  John,  at  the  end  of  Domitian's  reign,  received 
revelations,  which  he  afterwards  committed  to  writing ;  and  since,  ac- 
cording to  the  Apocalypse,  this  must  have  happened  in  the  Isle  of  Pat- 
mos whither  he  had  been  banished,  it  follows  that  he  was  sentenced  by 
that  emperor.  But  owing  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  traditions  of  that 
age,  we  cannot  acknowledge  this  account  as  sufficiently  accredited  ;  it  is 
iudeed  possible,  that  it  proceeded  only  from  a  peculiar  interpretation  of 
this  obscure  book,  and  not  from  any  historical  testimony.  And  if  the 
Apocalypse  contains  certain  marks  of  having  been  written  before  this 
time,  this  opinion  would  at  once  cease  to  be  tenable.  As  this  is  really 
the  case,  then  certainly  the  Apocalypse,  which  we  cannot  acknowledge 
as  a  work  of  the  apostle,J  must  have  been  written  soon  after  the  death 

*  See  Tertull.  Prsescript.  c.  36.  Clemens,  Qui  dives  salv.  c.  42,  speaks  of  the  return  of 
John  from  exile,  "the  tyrant  having  died,"  tov  rvpuvvov  reAevTrjaavrog.  without  specifying 
any  name.  Origen,  t.  xvi.  in  Matt.  §  6,  also  uses  the  indefinite  expression,  "  the  king  of 
the  Romans,"  6  'Puftaiuv  fiaGikevq, 

\  V.  30. 

\  "We  refer,  on  this  subject,  to  the  celebrated  work  of  Dr.  Liicke,  Versuch  einer  voll- 
standigen  Einleitung  in  die  Offenbarung  Johannes.  Bonn,  1832,  (An  Attempt  at  a  Com- 
plete Introduction  to  the  Revelation  of  John.)  "We  certainly  cannot  acknowledge  this 
book  as  the  work  of  the  apostle,  but  it  bears  witness  to  the  existence  of  a  Johannean  doc- 
trinal type,  just  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  could  not  proceed  from  the  apostle  Paul, 
but  indicates  that  its  author  was  a  person  who  enjoyed  close  intimacy  with  the  apostle. 
"We  reckon  among  these  marks,  the  agreement  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  which  no  re- 
finements can  remove,  (i.  17;  iii.  14;  xix.  30;)  the  designation  of  living  waters,  (vii. 
17 ;)  and  several  other  things  in  the  perhaps  excessively  symbolical  expressions.  Not- 
withstanding the  strongly  marked  Jewish  element,  there  breathes  throughout  the  book  a 
spirit  quite  different  from  the  Ebionitish,  such  a  spirit  as  could  not  have  issued  from  the 
impure  elements  of  that  age  without  the  creative  breath  of  the  transforming  Spirit  of 
Christ.  Who  can  help  acknowledging  this  in  the  description  of  the  exaltation  of  glorified 
believers,  and  of  their  salvation,  in  the  seventh  chapter ;  of  the  glory  of  the  perfected  the- 
ocracy in  the  one-and-twentieth  chapter;  in  the  representation  of  the  universal  priesthood ; 
and  in  the  Apocalyptic  epistles?  The  literal  interpretation  of  the  imagery  which  would 
give  us  a  sensuous  Chiliasm,  would  refute  itself  through  the  self-contradictory  representa- 
tions that  would  spring  from  it.  We  find  in  the  book  no  traces  whatever  of  Jewish  nation- 
ality, or  of  a  special  distinction  of  Christians  of  Jewish  descent;  for  if  144,000  chosen  out 
of  the  twelve  tribes  are  mentioned  in  ch.  vii.  4,  yet,  an  innumerable  multitude  of  glorified 
saints  out  of  all  nations  and  tongues  are  immediately  afterwards  described.  And  in  ch. 
xiv.  3,  the  144,000  appear  again  as  the  first-fruits  of  Christians  out  of  all  nations,  as  the 
most  advanced  in  the  Christian  life,  from  which  contradiction  of  the  first-named  statement, 
it  may  seem  that  such  designations  in  this  book  are  not  to  be  taken  exactly  according  to 
the  letter.  Lastly,  in  the  interpretation  of  this  latter  passage,  I  cannot  agree  with  what 
Bleek  has  lately  suggested,  that  only  those  persons  are  here  pointed  out  who  had  kept 
themselves  free  from  all  the  lewdness  connected  with  heathenism.  If  only  this  had  been 
intended,  it  would  hardly  have  been  brought  forward  so  prominently  by  the  author.  In 
this  passage  I  can  only  find  those  persons  represented  who  led  a  single  life  in  undivided 
devotedness  to  the  Lord  alone,  to  whom  their  whole  life  was  consecrated.     Of  any  polemic 


366  AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE   APOCALYPSE. 

of  N"ei*o.*  The  whole  account  of  the  banishment  of  the  apostle  John  to 
the  Isle  of  Patmos  may  have  been  taken  chiefly  from  the  Apocalypse, 
and  if  this  book  can  be  shown  not  to  belong  to  John,  the  credibility  of 
this  account  at  once  falls  to  the  ground.  Yet  here  two  cases  are  possi- 
ble. If  the  Apocalypse  proceeded*  from  another  John  than  the  apostle, 
if  it  was  the  composition  of  the  Presbyter  John  who  was  his  contem- 
porary at  Ephesus,+  the  banishment  to  the  Isle  of  Patmos  would  relate 

tone  directed  against  the  apostle  Paul  not  a  trace  can  be  found  in  the  book  ;  it  cannot  be 
taken  as  a  proof  of  this  tone,  that  in  ch„  xxi.  14,  according  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  theo- 
cratic people,  only  twelve  apostles  are  mentioned  as  the  foundation  of  the  New  Jerusalem. 
I 'must  rather  agree  with  Bleek  that  these  words  are  rather  against,  than  for,  the  notion 
that  the  author  wished  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  apostles,  of  which  no  mark  exists  from 
whioh  it  could  be  inferred.  And  if  it  is  remarkable  that  any  other  person  than  the  apostle 
John  should  designate  himself  so  simply  as  the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  write  with  such 
confidence  and  emphasis  to  the  churches,  it  is  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  that  in  the 
vision  granted  him  he  might  believe  he  had  received  a  call  to  write  in  such  a  tone,  even  if 
his  own  personal  position  did  not  give  him  this  importance  in  the  Christian  church.  And 
if  he  himself  had  been  an  immediate  disciple  of  the  Lord,  this  alone  would  have  secured 
him  special  authority. 

*  We  remark  in  this  book,  the  vivid  impression  which  Nero's  persecu  ion  of  the  Chris- 
tians, his  burning  of  a  part  of  the  city  of  Rome,  and  especially  his  cruelties,  had  made  on 
the  minds  of  men.  The  story  that  Nero  was  not  really  dead,  but  had  retired  to  the 
Euphrates,  and  would  return  again  from  thence  (see  my  Church  History,  i.  96),  appears 
here  more  fully  delineated  by  a  Christian  imagination.  He  is  the  monster  to  whom  Satan 
gave  all  his  power,  who  returns  as  anti-christ  and  the  destroyer  of  Rome,  who  will  force 
all  to  worship  his  image.  The  Roman  empire  at  that  time  is  set  forth  as  the  represen- 
tative of  heathenism,  and  of  ungodly  power  personified,  and  in  this  connexion,  uuder  the 
image  of  the  beast  with  seven  heads  (the  seven  Roman  emperors  which  would  succeed 
one  another  till  the  appearance  of  anti-christ),  Nero  is  signified  as  one  of  these  heads  (xiii. 
3),  which  appeared  dead,  but  whose  deadly  wound  was  healed,  so  that  to  universal  aston- 
ishment he  appeared  alive  again.  Nero  reappearing  after  it  had  been  believed  that  he  was 
dead,  is  the  beast  "  which  was,  and  is  not,  and  shall  ascend  out  of  the  bottomless  pit — and 
yet  is,"  Rev.  xvii.  8.  Of  the  seven  emperors  who  were  to  reign  until  the  appearance  of 
anti-christ,  it  is  said  that  five  have  fallen — one  (Nero's  successor)  is  now  reigning,  and  the 
other  is  not  yet  come ;  and  when  he  comes,  he  must  remain  only  a  short  time,  and  the 
beast  which  was  and  is  not.  is  itself  the  eighth  and  one  of  the  seven  ;  (Nero  as  one  of  the 
seven  emperors  is  the  fifth,  but  inasmuch  as  he  comes  again  as  anti-christ,  and  founds  the  last 
universal  monarchy  following  the  succession  of  the  seven  emperors,  he  is  the  eighth.) 
Nero  comes  from  the  East,  supported  by  his  tributaries — the  ten  kings  (his  Satraps,  the  ten 
horns  of  the  beast)  leagued  with  him  to  destroy  Rome,  and  to  make  war  on  Christianity. 
The  waters  of  the  Euphrates  are  dried  up,  to  make  a  way  for  Nero  with  his  ten  Satraps, 
xvi.  12,  who,  in  his  service,  would  burn  and  destroy  Rome,  xvii.  16.  All  this  marks  the 
time  in  which  the  Apocalypse  must  have  been  written,  the  change  of  the  emperor  after 
Nero,  while  the  image  of  this  monster  was  yet  in  vivid  recollection,  and  men  were  dis- 
posed to  depict  the  future  in  magnified  images  of  the  past;  it  also  agrees  with  this  date, 
that  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  is  described  as  still  in  existence,  i.  1,  therefore  it  must  be  be- 
fore the  year  70.  The  future  and  the  past  comprehended  within  the  limits  of  time  lie 
before  the  prophetic  eye  of  the  author  near  to  each  other.  The  image  of  the  future  which 
hovers  before  the  eye  of  his  inspiration  presents  itself  to  him  in  the  reflex  of  the  past  and 
the  present.  When  he,  for  example,  speaks  of  kings  and  peoples  out  of  many  tongues 
who  have  confessed  themselves  Christians,  this  cannot  suit  the  time  then  present. 

f  If  the  Presbyter  John  were  the  author,  the  early  substitution  of  the  apostle  of  the 


AUTHORSHIP    OF   THE   APOCALYPSE.  367 

to  him,  and  not  to  the  apostle  of  this  name.  And  this  change,  hy  which 
the  Apocalypse  was  attributed  to  the  apostle,  would  have  occasioned 
also  the  report  of  his  banishment  to  this  island,  although  it  is  possible 
that  the  same  outward  causes  might  have  led  to  the  banishment  of  both 
these  distinguished  teachers  of  the  religio  illicita.  But  if  we  admit  tliat 
another  person  wished  to  represent  these  revelations  as  those  which  the 
apostle  John  had  received,  and  if  we  hence  infer,  that  in  order  to  per- . 
sonate  John,  he  made  use  of  certain  passages  in  his  life,  then  the  words 
in  i.  9,  in  case -they  are  to  be  understood  of  a  banishment  to  the  Isle  of 
Patmos,*  yet  always  presuppose  the  fact  of  such  an  exile  of  the  apostle, 
and  we  must  in  this  case  place  his  banishment  in  the  first  period  after 
his  arrival  in  Lesser  Asia.  But  it  is  possible  that,  independently  of  the 
Apocalypse,  there  might  have  been  a  tradition  that  the  apostle  John  was 
banished  by  the  Emperor  Domitian  (in  whose  reign  such  banishments  to 
the  islands  on  account  of  passing  over  to  Judaism  or  Christianity  were 
not  uncommon)  to  the  Isle  of  Patmos  or  some  other  island  ;  and  it  is 
possible  that,  from  this  tradition,  the  supposition  was  formed  that  the 
Apocalypse  ascribed  to  the  apostle  was  written  during  this  period.  Cer- 
tainly we  cannot  refuse  to  believe  the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Asiatic 
churches  in  the  second  century,  that  the  apostle  John,  as  a  teacher  of 
those  churches,  had  to  surfer  on  account  of  the  faith,  for  which  reason  he 
was  distinguished  as  a  martyr  in  the  above  quoted  epistle  of  Polycrates, 
Bishop  of  Ephesus.f 

same  name  might  be  very  easily  explained.  It  would  easily  happen  that  the  other  John 
would  be  forgotten  for  the  apostle,  and  particularly  since  a  book  which  announced  itself 
as  prophetic  would  create  reverence  for  itself  from  its  character,  there  would  be  less  dis- 
position to  doubt  that  the  author  who  styles  himself  John  was  the  apostle.  Lastly,  it  is 
worthy  of  observation  that  Polycrates,  in  Eusebius  v.  24,  where  he  quotes  all  John's  titles 
of  honor,  does  not  distinguish  him  as  a  prophet,  although  such  a  predicate,  if  he  believed 
that  he  could  employ  it,  must  have  availed  much.  The  position  of  the  words  in  the  most 
ancient  testimony  for  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  Justin  M.  Dial.  c.  Tryph. 
Jud.  f.  380,  is  very  striking.  'EneiSi)  ical  nap'  fjfj.lv  di'TJp  rig,  V  ovo/ia  'luuvvjjc,  elc  tuv 
uttootoIwv  tov  Xpiorov  npoe^ijrevae,  &c.  (Afterwards  also  among  us,  a  certain  man, 
whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  prophesied,  &c.)  If  we  do  not  venture 
to  regard  the  words,  "one  of  the  apostles,"  elc  tuv  dxooToTiuv,  as  an  interpolation,  though 
examples  of  such  interpolations  might  be  pointed  out  elsewhere  in  the  book,  j'et  all  that 
is  absolutely  certain  amounts  to  this,  that  the  Apocalypse  proceeded  from  a  person  of  the 
name  of  John;  and  that  this  was  the  apostle,  Justin  might  have  inferred  even  from  the 
name.     This  is  the  best  explanation  of  what  is  remarkable  in  the  position  of  the  words. 

*  Here  everything  depends  on  the  interpretation  of  the  words  in  Rev.  i.  9.  There  ia 
no  necessary  reference  to  sufferings  on  account  of  the  gospel.  The  words  may  be  under- 
stood thus :  "  I  was  in  the  Isle  of  Patmos,  for  the  purpose  of  publishing  the  word  of  God 
and  testifying  of  Christ;"  which  would  be  only  saying  that  John  had  visited  that  island 
for  the  sake  of  publishing  the  gospel,  or  that  he  had  gone  thither  in  order  that  a  divine 
revelation  should  there  be  communicated  to  him,  and  he  should  be  able  to  testify  of  that 
which  Christ  had  revealed  to  him;  iu  this  way  verse  2d  will  be  best  understood,  and 
the  "companion  in  tribulation,"  ovynoivuvbg  h  ttj  dhtyei,  need  not  necessarily  be  referred 
to  the  banishment  to  Patmos. 

f  The  words  of  the  epistle  in  Euseb.  v.  24,  and  quoted  above,  nal  fidprvg  nal  6l66. analog 
lirog  iv  'E^ejoj  KEKoifiTjrai.     (Both  a  martyr  and  a  teacher;  he  fell  asleep  at  Ephesus) 


368  John's  gospel. 

As  in  those  regions  where  the  general  superintendence  of  the  church 
devolved  on  John,  manifold  controversial  attempts  were  made  to  adul- 
terate the  Christian  faith,  as  well  as  to  disturb  and  suppress  the  spirit  of 
Christian  love,  it  was  the  main  object  of  his  protracted  labors  to  main- 
tain and  propagate  the  essence  of  the  Christian  faith  and  of  Christian 
love,  in  opposition  to  these  destructive  influences.  Of  this  fact  his 
writings  bear  witness,  which,  as  they  were  produced  under  such  circum- 
stances, give  indications  of  their  tendency  even  where  they  are  not  pro- 
fessedly and  intentionally  polemical.  But  as  his  natural  character  was 
rather  contemplative  than  argumentative,  the  controversial  element  in  his 
writings  is  not  so  decidedly  indicated,  nor  developed  with  so  definite  and 
complete  an  outline  as  in  the  dialectic  Paul.  His  controversial  style  is 
more  that  of  simple  affirmation :  from  the  fulness  of  his  heart  he  testifies 
his  inmost  convictions  of  the  basis  of  salvation,  and  he  only  marks  occa- 
sionally, and  points  out  with  abhorrence,  the  opposite  of  these  convic- 
tions, instead  of  entering  into  a  full  confutation.  This  especially  applies 
to  his  Gospel.  Since  he  wrote  it  among  churches  and  for  churches  among 
which  a  multitude  of  traditions  respecting  the  history  of  Christ,  oral  and 
written,  must  long  have  been  in  circulation,  (Paul  had  already  assumed 
the  existence  of  these  and  accommodated  himself  to  them,)  he  could  not 
do  otherwise  in  his  historical  representations  than  take  these  circumstan- 
ces into  account,  and  hence  would  give  only  such  a  selection  from  the 
evangelical  history  as  appeared  to  him  precisely  the  best  fitted  to  repre- 
sent Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  from  whom  alone  men  could  receive  eternal 
life,  and  to  transfer  to  others  the  impression  which  the  contemplation  of 
his  life  had  made  upon  himself,  as  he  declares  at  the  close  of  his  gospel, 
where  he  says,  "  And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the  presence 
of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book.  But  these  are 
written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  believing  (by  the  virtue  of  this  faith)  ye  might  have  life  (true, 
divine,  eternal  life)  through  his  name,"  (through  him  as  the  Son  of  God) ; 
xx.  30,  31.  John  accordingly  made  exactly  this  selection  from  the  evan- 
gelical history  in  order  to  lead  men  to  this  faith ;  to  aid,  strengthen,  and 
uphold  them  in  maintaining  it.  As  in  the  application  of  the  idea  of  faith 
in  John  there  were  various  shades  of  meaning,  ajl  these  varieties  may 
be  included  in  the  words  "that  ye  may  believe;"  and  as  they  are  all 
embraced  in  the  apostle's  design,  those  polemic  references  must  be  un- 
derstood which  belong  to  the  maintenance  and  confirmation  of  the  faith 
under  such  circumstances.  And  the  delineation  of  the  life  of  Christ  in 
its  unity,  as  it  proceeded  from  the  heart  and  mind  of  John,  must  of  itself 
have  been  fitted  to  form  a  barrier  against  all  those  tendencies  which  dis- 
turbed the  purity  of  Christianity.  But  because  this  species  of  polemic, 
which  inheres  in  the  subject  itself,  predominates  through  the  peculiarity 
of  John  and  the  peculiar  nature  of  his  Gospel,  it  can  by  no  means  be 
hence  shown  from  the  Gospel  itself,  that  he  intended  to  bring  specially 
to  view  certain  definite  controversies.     Even  those  which,  from  his  pe- 


John's  gospel.  369 

culiar  scene  of  labor,  we  might  consider  as  most  probably  aimed  at,  can- 
not be  ascertained  from  the  Gospel  itself  by  any  fair  deduction ;  as,  for 
example,  the  declaration  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  b  Xoyog  oap^ 
eyevero,  which  occurs  in  the  introduction,  and  thus  marks  the  spirit  of 
the  whole  development  of  his  history  in  so  far  as  it  describes  the  reve- 
lation of  the  divine  life  in  human  form,  is  peculiarly  suited  to  form  a 
refutation  of  the  Cerinthian  gnosis.  But  there  is  no  indication  that  John 
made  this  refutation  a  leading  object  of  his  Gospel.  In  his  narrative  of 
Christ's  baptism,  he  might  have  had  a  strong  inducement  to  bring  for- 
ward this  controversy,  as  Cerinthus  had  affixed  a  peculiar  interpretation 
to  this  event,  in  accordnnce  with  his  general  scheme.  But  in  order  to 
combat  Cerinthus,  he  must  have  commenced  the  history  of  Christ  at  an 
earlier  period,  and  have  adduced  those  conspicuous  marks  of  the  Divine, 
which  accompanied  the  birth  of  Christ.  So  also,  though  the  manner  in 
which  the  purely  human  in  Christ  is  developed  throughout  the  Gospel,  is 
most  decidedly  opposed  to  Docetism,  yet  we  can  find  in  it  no  trace  of  a 
designed  and  continuous  refutation  of  that  heresy.  "  The  Word  was 
made  flesh,"  is  not  in  the  least  suited  to  this  purpose,  for,  taken  by 
itself,  it  may  be  fairly  understood  in  the  docetic  sense,  that  the  "  Word  " 
itself  became  "  flesh,"  since  Docetism  considered  "  flesh  "  only  as  the 
apparent  sensuous  guise  in  which  the  "  Word  "  presented  itself  to  eyes 
of  sense.  From  this  point  of  view  it  might  with  propriety  be  affirmed 
that  the  "  Word  "  became  "  flesh,"  or  presented  itself  in  the  form  of 
"flesh."  And  in  what  John  says  of  the  flowing  of  water  and  blood 
from  Christ's  side,  it  has  been  very  erroneously  attempted  to  find  a  refu- 
tation of.  Docetism.  This  argumentation  cannot  affect  the  Docetae,  for 
they  would  be  as  ready  to  allow  that  the  Roman  soldier  and  John  saw 
the  blood  and  water  flowing,  as  to  grant  that  Jesus  presented  himself  to 
the  senses  of  men  in  his  life  and  passion  as  narrated  in  the  evangelical 
history.  They  only  denied  the  objective  reality  of  the  sensuous  percep- 
tions, and  this  denial  would  apply  to  one  fact  as  well  as  to  another.  But 
John  mentions  it  in  that  connexion  simply  as  a  sign  of  the  reality  of 
Christ's  death,  in  order  thereby  to  establish  faith  in  the  reality  of  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead. 

It  is  only  in  the  introduction  to  his  Gospel  that  John  appears  to  design 
a  special  reference  to  men  of  any  peculiar  mental  tendency  among  his 
contemporaries ;  a  reference  to  those  who  busied  themselves  with  specu- 
lations respecting  the  Logos  as  the  Mediator  between  the  hidden  God 
and  the  creation, — and  to  this  class  those  now  belonged,  who,  after  they 
had  professed  Christianity,  threatened  to  adulterate  it  by  mingling  with 
it  their  former  speculations.  It  cannot  indeed  be  denied  that  John,  inde- 
pendently of  any  outward  reference,  might  have  been  induced,  by  his 
Christian  consciousness  and  by  what  Christ  had  declared  respecting  him- 
self, to  name  him  simply  as  the  Logos.  As  Christ  represents  his  word 
or  words  (his  Adyof,  his  ^fxara,  his  (puvrj)  as  the  word  of  God  himself, 
that  thereby  alone  God  reveals  himself  to  men,  the  fountain  of  life,  the 


370  JOHN'S   GOSPEL. 

word  of  life ;  so  John  might  thereby  be  induced  to  designate  him  as  the 
Wor,d,  which  is  God,  (the  self-revealing  Divine  Being  simply,)  the  Word, 
the  Source  of  life* ;  and  also  the  reference  to  a  word  of  God,  by  which 
God  already  in  the  Old  Testament  had  revealed  himself,  might  here 
attach  itself,  to  point  out  a  preparation  in  the  Old  Testament  for  the  rev- 
elation of  the  Divine  Being  in  Christ.  Meanwhile,  the  manner  in  which 
John  places  this  Word  without  farther  definition  at  the  head  of  his 
whole  representation,  makes  it  probable  that,  although  he  was  perhaps 
led  to  the  choice  of  this  expression  from  within,  since  he  sought  for  a 
new  designation  for  a  new  idea,  yet  he  connected  with  it  an  idea  already 
existing,  and  the  train  of  thought  with  which  he  opens  his  Gospel  serves 
to  establish  this  opinion.  John  wished  to  lead  those  who  busied  them- 
selves with  speculations  respecting  the  Logos  as  the  medium  of  all  com- 
municated life  from  God  and  of  every  revelation  of  God,  the  central 
point  of  all  the  theophanies,  from  their  religious  idealism  to  a  religious 
realism,  to  the  acknowledgment  of  God  revealed  in  Christ — to  the  con- 
sciousness that  the  Logos,  as  the  divine  fountain  of  life,  had  appropriated 
human  nature,  and  through  it  communicated  himself  as  the  fountain  of 
all  true  life  and  light  to  every  one  who  believed  in  his  human  appear- 
ance. Instead  of  wishing  to  investigate  the  hidden  which  no  human 
mind  can  penetrate,  he  called  on  every  one  to  contemplate  Him  who  had 
revealed  himself  in  human  nature — to  believe  and  experience  what  he 
testified  he  had  himself  seen  and  experienced. 

The  whole  development  of  the  church  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr, 
testifies  to  the  existence  of  such  a  Gospel  which  operated  powerfully  on 
men's  minds.  Its  existence  cannot  be  explained  from  any  single  mental 
tendency  in  the  following  age,  nor  from  the  amalgamation  of  several 
tendencies.  Indeed,  it  existed  as  a  representation  of  a  higher  unity,  as 
a  reconciling  element  to  the  contrarieties  of  that  age,  and  could  exert  an 
attractive  power  over  minds  so  opposite  as  those  of  Heracleon,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Irenreus,  and  Tertullian.  Where  could  we  in  that  age 
find  a  man  who  was  raised  above  its  contrarieties  by  which  all  were  more 
or  less  affected  ?  And  would  a  man  of  so  superior  a  Christian  spirit  have 
crept  on  in  the  dark  and  made  use  of  such  a  mask,  instead  of  appearing 
openly  in  the  consciousness  of  all-conquering  truth  and  with  a  feeling  of 
his  mental  superiority  ?  A  man,  so  exalted  above  all  the  church  teachers 
of  that  century,  need  not  have  shrunk  from  the  conflict.  He  must  cer- 
tainly have  placed  more  confidence  in  the  power  of  truth  than  in  these 
arts  of  darkness  and  falsehood.  And  how  can  it  be  shown,  that  such  a 
man,  if  we  contemplate  him  in  the  light  of  his  own  age,  would  have  been 

*  See  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Lange  of  Jena  In  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1830,  part  iii. 
And  this  view  does  not  necessarily  depend  on  the  otherwise  forced  explanations  of  John's 
introduction,  into  which  the  worthy  author — an  author  whom  on  account  of  his  Christian- 
theological  character  I  hold  in  the  highest  esteem — has  been  led  by  his  peculiar  dogmatic 
system. 


JOHN'S    FIRST    EPISTLE.  371 

restrained  by  no  reverence  for  sacred  history,  by  no  scruple,  from  falsi- 
fying a  history,  the  contents  of  which  were  holy  to  him,  through  arbi- 
trary  fictions  for  a  definite  purpose,  through  actual  falsehoods  which 
must  find  their  justification  in  their  object?  And  how  imprudently  he 
must  have  acted  if, in  order  to  attain  his  object,  he  presented  the  history 
of  Christ  in  a  manner  which  stood  in  diametric  opposition  to  universal 
tradition  !  Truly  only  from  an  apostle  who  stood  in  such  relation  to 
Christ  as  John  did,  who  had  received  into  his  own  breast  the  impression 
and  image  of  that  unique  personality,  could  proceed  a  work  which  stands 
in  such  relation  to  the  contrarieties  of  the  post-apostolic  age  !  It  is  a 
thoroughly  immediate  production,  and  was  cast  in  a  single  mould.  The 
divine  in  its  own  immediate  essence  contains  this  power  of  composing 
differences  ;  but  never  could  such  afresh,  originally  powerful  production 
proceed  from  a  designed,  cleverly  constructed  composition  of  differences. 
The  Gospel  of  John,  if  it  did  not  proceed  from  the  apostle  John  and 
point  to  that  Christ,  a  beholding  of  whom  gave  birth  to  it,  would  be  the 
greatest  of  enigmas. 

In  the  circular  pastoral  letter,  which  is  distinguished  as  the  first  of 
his  Catholic  Epistles,  the  apostle  presents  himself  to  us  under  a  fatherly 
relation  to  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia,  whose  concerns,  during  his  resi- 
dence at  Ephesus,  he  regulated  with  wakeful  anxiety.  Liicke  has  justly 
remarked,  that  the  hortatory  or  paracletical  element  is  by  far  the  most 
conspicuous  in  it,  and  the  polemical  holds  a  very  subordinate  place,  which 
agrees  with  John's  peculiar  style.*  This  epistle  contains  an  admonition 
to  the  churches,  to  preserve  the  original  faith  steadfastly  and  truly  under 
the  manifold  temptations  which  threatened  them  both  from  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  as  well  as  from  those  various  classes  of  false  teachers  before  men- 
tioned— and  it  exhorts  the  churches  to  a  course  of  life  corresponding  to 
their  faith,  while  it  warns  against  a  formal  Christianity,  destitute  of  the 
true  Christian  spirit,  and  against  a  false  confidence  grounded  upon  it. 
When  we  think  of  the  churches  in  Lesser  Asia,  in  the  transition  from  the 
Pauline  age  to  that  of  John,  as  we  have  described  their  state  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages,  we  shall  probably  be  wholly  unable  (since  they  were  ex- 
posed to  manifold, diversified  conflicts  from  within  and  without,  and  to 
dangers  of  various  kinds)  to  find  a  unity  in  the  hortatory  and  contro- 
versial references,  nor  can  we  point  out  such  a  unity  in  the  contents  of 
the  epistle  itself  without  a  forced  or  too  subtle  an  interpretation.  Many 
passages  may  appear  to  be  exhortations  to  steadfastness  in  the  faith,  amidst 
the  allurements  to  unfaithfulness,  or  to  apostasy  presented  by  the  outward 
enemies  of  the  church,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  As  to  apostasy,  there 
were  reasons  for  such  exhortations,  as  the  Christians  were  still  closely 
connected  by  so  many  ties  to  the  Gentile  world  ;  new  members  were 
added  continually  to  the  Christian  communities  from  the  Gentiles,  whose 

*  This  epistle  is,  in  the  apostolic  sense,  a  "  word  of  exhortation,"  \6yog  napanlrioeus. 


372  john's  first  epistle. 

faith  required  confirmation ;  and,  since  the  first  Neronian  persecution,* 
individual  persecutions  were  constantly  repeated,  which  were  dangerous 
to  the  weak  in  faith.  Under  the  same  head  may  be  classed  the  exhorta- 
tion at  the  close  of  the  epistle,  faithfully  to  preserve  the  knowledge  of 
the  true  God  revealed  through  Christ  as  the  source  of  eternal  life,  and  to 
keep  themselves  from  all  contact  with  idolatry.  As  respects  temptations 
to  unfaithfulness,  the  churches  in  Lesser  Asia  for  the  most  part  consisted 
of  persons  of  Gentile  descent,  but  mixed  with  these  were  former  pro- 
selytes, and  individual  Jews,  who  formed  a  point  of  connexion,  by  which 
the  Jews  could  exert  an  influence  on  the  churches,  the  same  as  may  be 
noticed  in  the  Christian  communities  of  the  Pauline  and  even  of  the  Ig- 
natian  period.  It  might  also  seem,  that  when  John  combated  persons 
who  refused  to  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  he  intended  Jewish 
adversaries ;  but  a  closer  examination  will  suggest  several  objections  to 
this  view.  As  in  accordance  with  the  prophetic  expressions  in  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ  himself,  it  was  expected  that  a  special  revelation  of  the 
anti-christian  spirit  would  precede  the  triumph  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
which  was  to  be  effected  by  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  so  John  recog- 
nised as  a  mark  of  this  approaching  crisis,  that  many  organs  of  this  anti- 
christian  spirit  had  already  made  their  appearance.  Now  this  could  not 
refer  to  Jewish  adversaries,  for  these  from  the  very  first  were  never 
wanting.  The  apostle  moreover  says  of  them,  "They  have  gone  out 
from  the  midst  of  us,  but  they  belonged  not  in  disposition  to  us ;  for  had 
they  belonged  in  disposition  to  us,  they  would  have  remained  with  us ; 
but  by  their  outward  separation  from  us,  it  became  manifest  that 
not  all  who  belonged  outwardly  to  us  belonged  to  us  also  inwardly." 
This  may  indeed  be  understood  of  those  who,  while  they  still  made 
a  profession  of  Christianity,  were  always  in  their  disposition  more 
inclined  to  Judaism,  so  that  at  last  they  openly  passed  over  to  it,  and 
became  the  opponents  of  Christianity.  But  such  frequent  conversions  or 
apostasies  to  Juadaism  in  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia,  at  this  period, 
were  by  no  means  probable.  It  is  more  natural  to  think  of  those  mem- 
bers of  Christian  communities,  who  had  fostered  in  their  bosoms  heretical 
tendencies  foreign  to  Christianity,  which  must  have  at  last  resulted  in 
their  open  separation  from  the  churches.  With  justice,  John  says  of  a 
time  like  this,  in  which  churches  were  formed  out  of  various  mental  ele- 
ments not  all  in  an  equal  measure  attracted  and  penetrated  by  Chris- 
tianity, that  whatever  portion  was  actually  animated  by  the  Christian 
spirit,  must  be  separated,  by  a  refining  process  proceeding  from  the  life 
of  the  church  itself,  from  what  was  only  superficially  affected  by  Chris, 
tianity,  and  wore  the  mere  semblance  of  it.  Besides  the  manner  in  which 
the  apostle  exhorts  believers  to  hold  fast  the  doctrine  announced  to  them 

*  If  we  do  not  directly  admit  that  this  epistle  was   written  in  the  last  part  of  tha 
Johannean  period,  under  the  Emperor  Nerva. 


John's  first  epistle.  373 

from  the  beginning — his  saying  to  them  that  they  required  no  further 
instruction  to  put  them  on  their  guard  against  the  spread  of  those  errors 
— that  they  need  only  to  be  referred  to  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
already  received,  to  their  indwelling  Christian  consciousness  (ii.  22) — all 
this  rather  imports  an  opposition  to  false  teachers,  than  to  decided  ad- 
versaries of  the  gospel,  who  could  not  be  so  dangerous  to  believers. 

Although  John  describes  his  opponents  as  those  who  did  not  acknow- 
ledge Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  yet,  according*  to  the  remarks  just  made,  this 
cannot  be  understood  of  decided  unbelieving  opponents  of  the  Messianic 
dignity  of  Jesus.  And  we  must  explain  this  shorter  description  of  his 
opponents  by  the  longer,  according  to  which  they  are  represented  as  those 
who  would  not  acknowledge  the  incarnate  Christ,  or  who  would  not  re- 
cognize Jesus  as  the  Messiah  manifest  in  the  flesh.  Therefore,  with  their 
Docetic  views  they  would  not  receive  the  annunciation  of  a  Messiah 
appearing  in  the  flesh ;  the  reality  of  the  living,  acting,  and  suffering 
Christ  in  the  form  of  earthly  human  nature.*  And  since  John  could 
not  separate  the  divine  and  the  human  in  the  person  and  life  of  the  Re- 
deemer from  one  another,  for  both  had  revealed  themselves  to  him  as 
inseparable  in  the  unity  of  the  appearance  of  the  Son  of  God, — it  ap- 
peared to  him,  that  whoever  did  not  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  whole  unity  and  completeness  of  his  divine-human  life,  did  not 
truly  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  Messiah ;  and  since  only 
thus  the  eternal  divine  source  of  life  revealed  itself  in  human  nature  and 
imparted  itself  to  men,  and  a  way  to  communion  with  God  was  thereby 
alone  opened  for  all, — it  appeared  to  him  that  whoever  denied  the  reality 
of  the  revelation  of  the  divine  Logos  in  the  flesh,  denied  the  Son  of  God 
himself  and  the  Father  also.  This  was  the  real  anti-Christian  spirit  of 
falsehood,  which,  though  connecting  itself  in  appearance  with  the  Chris- 
tian profession,  in  fact  threatened  to  destroy  faith  in  the  Son,  and  in  the 
Father  as  revealed  in  the  Son. 

In  a  passage  which  is  rather  practical  and  hortatory  than  contro- 
versial, where  John,  for  the  purpose  of  exhortation,  lays  down  the  posi- 
tion that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  arms  with  power  for  all  con- 
flicts with  the  world,  he  adds,  "  Jesus  is  he  who  has  revealed  himself  as 
the  Messiah  by  waterf  and  by  blood, — by  means  of  the  baptism  received 

*  If  it  be  objected,  as  by  Lange  in  his  Beitrage  zur  dlteslen  Kirchengeschichie,  Leipzig, 
1828,  p.  121,  that  if  John  designed  the  confutation  of  Docetism,  he  would  have  expressed 
himself  in  some  precise  terms,  such  as  we  find  in  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius ;  the  answer  is, 
that  it  is  John's  favorite  method  not  to  mark  the  object  of  controversy  more  distinctly  and 
fully. 

f  As  the  "  carre  by  blood"  relates  to  Jesus  subjectively,  to  the  one  who  had  re- 
vealed himself  by  his  own  sufferings,  so  also  the  second  clause,  "  came  by  water,"  is 
most  naturally  referred  to  something  affecting  Jesus  personally,  and,  therefore,  not  to  the 
baptism  instituted  by  him.  This  reason  is  not  perfectly  decisive,  for,  if  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  are  not  contemplated  in  their  subjective  aspect,  (that  is,  simply  in  relation  to  Jesus 
as  the  sufferer )  but  rather  in  their  objective  aspect,  as  redeeming  sufferings,  as  that  by 
which  Christ  effected  the   salvation  of  mankind,  then  the  coming  by  water  might  fitly 


3H  john's  first  epistle. 

from  him*  and  by  means  of  his  redeeming  sufferings ;  and  that  which  the 
Spirit  of  God,  whose  witness  is  infallible,  has  effected,  and  still  effects,  by 
him,  'testifies  the  same.  The  threefold  witness  of  the  water,  the  blood, 
and  the  Spirit,  thus  unite  to  verify  the  same." 

It  is  possible  that  John  in  this  passage  collected  such  marks  as  ap« 
peared  to  him  most  striking,  which  distinguished  Jesus  as  the  Son  of 
God,  without  any  special  controversial  reference.  But  it  is  also  possible 
that  he  connected  a  polemical  with  a  parenetical  design,  and  therefore 
was  induced  to  bring  together  precisely  these  marks ;  and  in  this  case  it 
would  be  certainly  most  natural  to  suppose  an  intended  contradiction  of 
the  Cerinthian  view,  which  separated  the  Christ  who  appeared  at  the 
Baptism  from  the  crucified  Jesus. 

This  epistle,  then,  contains  an  impressive  appeal  against  the  practical 
adulterations  of  Christianity.  The  apostle  declares  that  only  he  who 
practices  righteousness  is  born  of  God, — that  a  life  in  communion  with 
Christ  and  a  life  of  sin  are  irreconcilable, — that  whoever  lives  in  sin  is 
far  from  knowing  him  ;  whoever  commits  sin  transgresses  also  the  law, 
and  sin  is  actually  a  transgression  of  the  law.  From  this  contrast  it 
might  be  inferred  that  the  false  gnosis  here  combated  had  produced  and 
confirmed  practical  errors  ;  and  we  may  believe  that  we  here  find  traces 
of  the  false  liberalism  and  antinomianism  of  the  later  gnosis,  such  as  we 
have  pointed  out  above,  p.  361,  in  many  appearances  of  this  age.  In 
this  case  his  opponents  would  be  only  those  who  opposed  the  ethical  in 
the  form  of  law,  and  said,  What  you  call  sin  appears  so  only  to  those 
who  are  still  enthralled  in  legal  bondage ;  we  must  give  proof  of  our 
being  free  from  the  law  by  not  regarding  such  commands.     But  if  John 

denote  the  institution  of  baptism,  which  is  necessarily  required  for  completing  the  redeem- 
ing work  of  Christ.  But  what  Liicke  in  his  Commentary,  2d  ed.  p.  288,  has  urged  against 
the  view  I  have  taken,  does  not  appear  pertinent.  The  Messiah  (he  thinks)  was  to  be 
inducted  to  his  office  by  a  solemn  inauguration.  This  was  performed  through  John  as  the 
appointed  prophet  by  means  of  the  Messianic  baptism.  Hence  the  coming  by  water  is 
placed  first,  by  which  Jesus  at  first  revealed  himself  as  the  Messiah,  and  from  which  his 
whole  public  Messianic  ministry  dates  its  commencement.  This  must  have  been  peculiarly 
important  in  John's  estimation,  who  was  first  led  to  Christ  by  the  testimony  of  the  Bap- 
tist. On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that  if  he  had  meant  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ,  he 
would  have  placed  first  the  "  coming  by  blood,"  for  I  cannot  agree  with  what  Liicke  says 
in  p.  291 :  "  Precisely  on  this  account  was  it,  because  "  water"  denotes,  as  it  were,  only 
the  beginning  of  purification,  while  the  full  purification  lies  in  the  "blood,"  that  John 
emphatically  adds,  '  not  by  water  only,'  (with  which  alone  John  the  Baptist  appeared, 
and  therefore  was  not  the  Messiah,  Matt.  iii.  11),  '  but  by  water  and  by  blood.'  "  The 
baptism  of  Christ  was  in  the  apostle's  view  altogether  different  from  that  of  John.  With 
it  was  connected  complete  purification.  "Water-baptism  and  Spirit-baptism  cannot  here  be 
separated  from  one  another,  and  this  Christian  baptism  necessarily  presupposes  the  re- 
deeming sufferings  of  Christ.  See  Ephes.  v.  25,  26.  As  far  as  Cerinthus  acknowledged 
the  Messiah  only  as  "coming  by  water,"  not  as  "  coming  by  blood,"  this  would  agree  with 
a  designed  opposition  to  his  doctrine. 

*  On  account  of  the  importance  which  is  attributed  to  it  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  in 
reference  to  the  unveiling  of  the  Messiah's  dignity  and  the  hidden  glory  of  Jesus. 


JOHN'S   SECOND   EPISTLE.  375 

had  been  called  to  oppose  sucli  a  gross  antinomianism,  he  would  have 
had  to  maintain  against  it  the  dignity  and  holiness  of  the  law,  and  would 
have  given  his  polemic  a  very  different  direction,  indeed  quite  the  reverse. 
He  must  have  said,  Whoever  transgresses  the  law,  commits  sin,  and  the 
transgression  of  the  law  is  sin.  Also  from  his  saying,  "  Whoever  sinueth, 
knoweth  not  Christ,"  it  by  no  means  follows  that  those  against  whom  he 
is  writing,  taught  a  gnosis  of  immoral  tendency.  Nor  is  it  at  all  clear, 
that  the  practical  errors  which  he  combated  proceeded  from  a  peculiar 
theoretic  source ;  nothing  more  was  needed  for  their  production  than 
that  unchristian  tendency  which  would  naturally  spring  up,  especially  in 
churches  that  had  been  for  some  time  established,  in  which  Christianity 
had  passed  from  parents  to  children,  aud  become  a  matter  of  custom, 
and  a  tendency  to  reliance  on  the  opus  operatum  of  faith  and  of  outward 
profession,  faith  not  being  apprehended  as  an  animating  principle  of 
the  inward  life.  In  opposition  to  such  a  tendency,  which  disowned  the 
claims  of  Christianity  on  the  whole  of  life,  and  palliated  immorality,  the 
apostle  says,  "  Whoever  lives  in  sin,  whatever  be  his  pretensions,  is  far 
from  knowing  Jesus  Christ ;  all  sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  divine  law, 
which  in  its  whole  extent  is  sacred  to  the  Christian." 

The  view  of  the  false  teachers  to  which  we  have  been  led,  by  the 
First  Epistle  of  John,*  is  confirmed  by  the  Second,  addressed  to  a  Chris- 
tian female  in  those  parts,  named  Kyria,  and  her  children ;  for  in  this  we 
find  warnings  against  the  same  false  teachers  who  would  not  acknowl- 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  the  author  of  the  two  last  Epistles  of  John  styles  himself  a 
presbyter,  a  term  which  is  not  suited  to  designate  an  apostle,  and  particularly  since  at  that 
time,  and  in  that  region,  a  person  was  living  who  was  usually  distinguished  by  the  name 
of  the  Presbyter  John.  Such  was  the  presbyter  John  to  whom  Papias  appeals,  Euseb. 
iii.  29,  and  we  might  be  tempted  to  attribute  this  epistle  to  him.  He  appears  to  have 
been  commonly  distinguished  by  the  name  of  the  presbyter  (which  is  here  a  title  of  office) 
John,  from  the  apostle  John,  and  hence  the  word  npeofivTEpoc;  was  wont  to  be  placed 
before  the  name  John.  It  is  indeed  improbable  that,  during  the  lifetime  of  the  apostle, 
another  could  have  attained  such  high  repute  among  the  churches,  as  this  epistle  leads  us 
to  suppose  of  its  author;  but  it  might  have  been  written  after  the  apostle's  death ;  for  that 
the  presbyter  survived  him  may  be  inferred,  as  Credner  justly  remarks,  from  the  circum- 
stance that  Papias,  in  speaking  of  what  John  and  each  of  the  other  apostles  had  said, 
uses  the  past  tense,  "he  said,"  einev,  but  when  speaking  of  the  two  individuals  who  had 
not  heard  Christ  himself,  Aristion  and  the  presbyter  John,  his  words  are  "  they  say," 
?Jyovaiv.  Ou  the  other  hand,  we  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  the  great  harmony  of 
coloring,  tone,  and  style,  between  the  first  epistle  and  the  two  others,  favors  the  opinion  of 
their  having  been  written  by  the  same  person  ;  nor  can  this  be  counterbalanced  by  the  in- 
stances of  single  expressions  that  do  not  occur  elsewhere  in  John's  writings.  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  how  that  presbyter,  especially  if  we  are  to  consider  the  Apocalypse  as  his  work, 
could  adopt  a  style  so  foreign  to  himself,  in  so  slavish  a  manner,  during  the  later  years  of 
his  life.  As  to  the  name  of  presbyter,  which  John  here  assumes,  we  can  hardly  think  it 
of  consequence  that  Papias  distinguishes  the  apostles  by  the  term  presbyters,  for  it  is  evi- 
dent that  he  so  calls  them  only  in  relation  to  their  contemporaries,  as  belonging  to  a  still 
earlier  period,  and  it  cannot  hence  be  inferred  that  John  gave  himself  that  title.  But  since  . 
there  is  no  other  original  document  extant,  in  which  John  marks  his  relation  to  the  .Jiiu-ch,  ' 
we  cannot  pronounce  an  opinion  that  he  was  never  kuown  by  such  an  epithet. 


376  john's  third  epistle. 

edge  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ  in  human  nature.*  He  speaks  of 
their  progress  as  a  new  phenomenon,  and  designates  them,  not  as  the 
adversaries  of  Christianity  in  general,  but  as  persons  who  had  aposta- 
tized from  the  original  doctrine  of  Christ.  He  warns  in  general  against 
all  falsifiers  of  that  original  doctrine..  The  faithful  were  not  to  receive 
them  into  their  houses,  nor  to  salute  them  as  Christian  brethren. f 

The  Third  Epistle  of  John,  which  is  addressed  to  an  influential  person, 
perhaps  an  overseer  in  one  of  the  churches,  named  Gaius,  also  contains 
several  important  hints  respecting  the  then  existing  state  of  the  church. 
This  Gaius  had  distinguished  himself  by  the  active  love  with  which  he 
had  received  the  messengers  of  the  faith,  who  had  come  from  foreign 
parts  and  visited  his  church.  But  in  the  same  Christian  community 
there  was  a  domineering  individual,  Diotrephes,  who  had  shown  himself 
unfriendly  towards  these  missionaries.  He  not  only  was  not  ready  to 
give  them  a  hospitable  reception,  but  wished  to  prevent  others  from  doing 
so,  and  even  threatened  to  exclude  them  from  church  communion.  He 
refused  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  apostle  John,  and  even 
indulged  in  malicious  invectives  against  him.  It  is  evident,  that  if  a 
member  of  a  Christian  community  ventured  to  conduct  himself  in  such 
a  manner  towards  an  apostle,  he  must  have  had  personal  reasons  for  not 
recognising  in  him  that  dignity  which  was  recognised  by  all  believers  as 
belonging  to  an  apostle ;  just  as  those  who  were  hostile  to  Paul  had 
special  grounds  for  disputing  his  apostolic  authority.  It  is  also  very  im- 
probable that  this  unfriendly  behavior  towards  the  missionaries  could 
have  arisen  at  this  period  from  an  aversion  to  their  calling,  simply  as  such. 
We  must  rather  attempt  to  discover  a  special  ground  of  dislike  to  these 
individual  missionaries.  Nor  is  it  unnatural  to  suppose  that  there  was 
one  common  ground  for  the  hostility  of  Diotrephes,  both  to  the  apostle 
and  the  missionaries.     Now,  let  us  suppose  that  the  latter  were  of  Jew- 


*  It  appears  to  me  most  natural  to  explain  the  present  in  2  John  7,  Ipxo/ierov  in- 
stead of  elrjlvBora,  by  supposing  that  John  used  this  form  owing  to  the  impression  on  his 
mind  that  these  false  teachers  not  only  refused  to  acknowledge  the  historical  manifestation 
of  Jesus  Christ,  but  also  denied  the  possibility  of  such  manifestation,  and  would  know  noth- 
ing in  general  of  a  Messiah  appearing  in  the  flesh. 

f  Although  we  may  recognise  in  the  form  of  this  expression  a  natural  characteristic 
of  JoliD,  a  vehemence  of  affection  as  strong  in  its  antipathies  as  in  its  attachments,  yet  its 
harshness  is  much  softened  by  a  reference  to  the  circumstances  and  relations  amid  which 
he  was  writing.  He  certainly  wished  only  to  express,  in  the  strongest  terms,  that  every 
appearance  should  be  avoided  of  acknowledging  these  persons  as  Christian  brethren.  Only 
on  this  account,  he  says  that  they  are  not  to  be  saluted,  which,  in  the  literal  sense,  he 
would  not  have  said  even  in  reference  to  heathens.  "We  must  restrict  it  to  the  peculiar 
sense  of  Christian  salutation,  which  was  not  a  mere  formality,  but  a  token  of  Christian 
brotherhood.  But  to  preserve  the  purity  of  Christianity  and  the  welfare  of  the  Christian 
church,  it  was  very  important  to  exclude,  from  the  very  beginning,  the  reception  of  these 
persons  (who,  by  their  arbitrary  speculations  and  fabrications,  threatened  to  destroy  the 
grounds  of  the  Christian  faith)  into  the  churches,  which  were  not  sufficiently  armed  against 
their  arts,  and  into  which  they  had  various  methods  of  insinuating  themselves. 


TRADITIONS   RESPECTING   JOHN.  311 

ish  descent.  It  is  said  to  their  praise,  that  they  went  out  to  publish  the 
gospel,  without  taking  anything  of  the  heathen  for  their  maintenance. 
If  they  were  Jewish  missionaries,  this  would  serve  as  a  special  distinction, 
for  from  what  Paul  frequently  says  respecting  this  class  of  persons,  we 
•know  that  many  of  them  abused  the  right  of  the  publishers  of  the  gos- 
pel to  be  maintained  by  those  for  whose  salvation  they  labored.  Now, 
as  there  existed  in  the  Gentile  churches  an  ultra-Pauline  party,  inclined 
to  a  violent,  one-sided,  anti-Jewish  tendency,*  the  forerunner  of  Marcion, 
so  Diotrephes  possibly  stood  at  the  head  of  such  a  body,  and  his  hostile 
conduct  towards  these  missionaries,  as  well  as  towards  the  apostle  John, 
who  on  his  arrival  in  Lesser  Asia  had  sought,  by  the  harmonizing  influ- 
ence of  the  Christian  spirit,  to  reconcile  the  differences  that  were  on  the 
point  of  breaking  out — may  be  traced  to  the  same  source.  Thus,  at  a 
later  period,  Marcion  attached  himself  to  Paul  alone,  and  paid  no  defer- 
ence to  the  authority  of  John. 

Various  traditions  respecting  the  labors  of  John  in  these  regions, 
which  he  continued  to  a  very  advanced  age,  perfectly  agree  with  that 
image  of  fatherly  superintendence  presented  to  us  in  these  epistles.  In 
a  narrative  attested  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,*  we  see  how  he  visited 
the  Christians  in  the  parts  round  about  Ephesus,  organized  the  churches, 
and  provided  for  the  appointment  of  the  most  competent  persons  to  fill 
the  various  church-offices.  On  one  of  these  occasions,  he  noticed  a  young 
man  who  promised,  under  the  influence  of  Christianity,  to  be  of  much 
service  in  the  cause  of  the  gospel.  He  commended  him  to  one  of  the 
overseers  of  the  church,  as  a  valuable  trust  committed  to  him  by  the 
Lord.  The  overseer  carefully  watched  him  till  he  received  baptism, 
but  placed  too  much  reliance  on  baptismal  grace.  He  left  him  to 
himself,  and  the  youth,  deprived  of  his  faithful  protection,  and  seduced 
by  evil  associates,  fell  deeper  into  corruption,  and  at  last  became  captain 
of  a  band  of  robbers.  Some  years  after, when  John  revisited  that  church, 
he  was  informed  to  his  great  sorrow  of  the  woful  change  that  had  taken 
place  in  the  youth  of  whom  he  had  entertained  such  hopes.  Nothing 
could  keep  him  back  from  hastening  to  the  retreat  of  the  robbers.  He 
suffered  himself  to  be  seized  and  taken  into  their  captain's  presence  ;  but 
he  could  not  sustain  the  sight  of  the  apostle ;  John's  venerable  appear- 
ance brought  back  the  recollection  of  what  he  had  experienced  in  earlier 
days,  and  awakened  his  conscience.  He  fled  away  in  consternation ;  but 
the  venerable  man,  full  of  paternal  love,  and  exerting  himself  beyond  his 
strength,  ran  after  him.  He  called  upon  him  to  take  courage,  and  an- 
nounced to  him  the  forgiveness  of  sins  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  By  his 
fatherly  guidance  he  succeeded  in  rescuing  his  soul,  and  formed  him  into 
a  worthy  member  of  a  Christian  community.f     Another  tradition  pre- 

*  Quis  dives  sal  v.  c.  42. 

f  Clemens  gives  this  Darrative,  which  breathes  the  spirit  of  John,  as  a  veritable  histor- 
ical tradition  and  no  legend,  /xvdoc  —  Aoyoc,  not  a  ftvdog  in  the  sense  of  a  fable,  a  legend ; 


378  TRADITIONS   RESPECTING   JOHN. 

served  by  Jerome*  bears  also  the  impress  of  the  apostle's  spirit.  When 
the  venerable  John  could  no  longer  walk  to  the  meetings  of  the  church, 
but  was  borne  thither  by  his  disciples,  he  always  uttered  the  same  ad- 
dress to  the  church ;  he  reminded  them  of  that  one  commandment  which 
he  had  received  from  Christ  himself -as  comprising  all  the  rest,  and  form- 
ing the  distinction  of  the  New  Covenant,  "My  children,  love  one 
another"  And  when  asked  why  he  always  repeated  the  same  thing,  he 
replied,  "Because  if  this  one  thing  were  attained,  it  would  be  enough." 

Thus  the  aged  apostle  labored  to  about  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury ;  and  the  spirit  that  diffused  itself  from  the  churches  of  Lesser  Asia 
during  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  testifies  of  his  protracted 
ministry  in  those  regions.  The  Lord  made  use  of  his  instrumentality 
to  prevent  the  foundation  of  the  faith  here  laid  by  the  apostle  Paul  from 
being  buried  under  a  heap  of  heterogeneous  speculations — and  to  pre- 
serve the  unity  of  the  Christian  faith  and  life  from  being  distracted  by 
various  extravagances  ;  that  the  glorious  body  of  the  Christian  church 
might  not  be  divided  into  a  multitude  of  sects  and  schools,  and  especially 
that  a  schism  might  not  be  produced  by  the  increasing  opposition  to  the 
Judaizing  and  Hellenistic  elements.  His  peculiar  tendency,  which  served 
to  exhibit  rather  the  fulness  and  depth  of  a  heart  filled  with  the  spirit  of 
Christ,  than  the  sharpness  and  distinctness  of  doctrinal  ideas,  was 
adapted,  while  it  rejected  with  ardent  love  whatever  threatened  to  en- 
danger the  foundation  of  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  to  conciliate  subordi- 
nate differences,  and  to  promote  the  formation  of  a  universal  Christian 
communion  out  of  heterogeneous  elements.  The  extent  of  his  influence 
is  marked  by  the  simple  practical  spirit,  the  spirit  of  zealous  love  to  the 
Lord,  and  the  spirit  of  Christian  fidelity  in  firmly  adhering  to  the  origi- 
nal apostolic  traditions,  even  though  not  perfectly  understood,  which  dis- 
tinguished the  Christian  teachers  of  Lesser  Asia  in  their  conflict  with 
the  Gnosticism  which  was  then  beginning  to  prevail. 

With  John  the  apostolic  age  of  the  church  naturally  closes.  The 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  which  by  him  had  been  still  exhibited  in  its  origi- 
nal purity  was  now  exposed,  without  the  support  of  apostolic  authority, 
to  a  conflict  with  a  host  of  opponents,  some  of  whom  had  already  made 
their   appearance ;   the  church  was   henceforth  left   to  form   itself  to 

daovaov  fivdov,   ov   fivdov,   JAAa   bvra    "kbyov irapadedofievov   icdl   ftvi/fitj 

Tve^vlayfievov.  (Hear  a  story,  which  is  not  a  story,  but  a  veritable  account  that  has  been 
handed  down  and  carefully  kept  in  memory.)  See  Segaar  on  the  passage.  Such  late  tra- 
ditions are  indeed  not  sufficient  pledges  to  authenticate  a  narrative  as  true  in  all  its  parts. 
It  is  possible  that  such  a  narrative  might  be  so  constructed,  partly  to  check  the  injurious 
confidence  in  the  magical  effects  of  baptism,  and  to  set  in  ft  clear  light  the  truth  that 
every  one  after  obtaining  baptism  needed  so  much  the  greater  watchfulness  over  himself- — 
and  partly  to  counteract  the  opinion  of  the  rigorists  on  the  nature  of  repentance,  that  who- 
ever violated  the  baptismal  covenant  by  peccata  mortalia,  could  not  again  receive  forgi  ve- 
ness  of  sins.  But  at  all  events,  this  narrative,  which  is  free  from  all  coloring  of  the  mirac- 
ulous, gives  altogether  the  impression  of  actual  truth  lying  at  its  basis. 
*  Comment,  in  Ep.  ad  Galat.  c  vi. 


INFLUENCE    OF   JOHN'S   LABORS.  379 

niatm-ity  without  any  visible  human  guidance,  but  under  the  invisible 
protection  of  the  Lord  :  and  finally,  after  a  full  and  clear  development 
of  opposing  tendencies,  it  was  destined  to  attain  the  higher  and  conscious 
unity  which  distinguished  the  spirit  of  the  apostle  John. 

We  wish  now  to  contemplate  more  closely  the  development  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  in  its  original  form,  and  to  observe  how  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit  exhibited  itself  in  the  manifoldness  of  the  natural  varieties 
animated  by  that  Spirit,  and  in  the  various  mode*  of  conception  which 
proceeded  from  those  varieties. 


BOOK  VI. 

TEE  APOSTOLIC    DOCTRINE. 

•  The  doctrine  of  Christ  was  not  to  be  given  to  mankind  as  a  rigid 
dead  letter,  in  one  determinate  stereotyped  form,  but  was  to  be  an- 
nounced as  the  word  of  spirit  and  of  life ;  the  word  that  should  proceed 
from  the  inward  life  in  living  flexibility  and  variety,  through  men  who, 
enlightened  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  received  and  appropriated  the  doctrine 
in  a  living  manner,  in  accordance  with  their  various  constitutional  qual- 
ities, and  their  several  peculiarities  of  education  and  life.  This  differ- 
ence served  to  manifest  the  living  unity,  the  riches  and  the  depth  of  the 
Christian  spirit  in  the  manifoldness  of  the  forms  of  conception,  which 
unintentionally  illustrated  and  supplemented  each  other.  Thus  Chris- 
tianity was  designed  and  adapted  to  appropriate  and  elevate  the  various 
tendencies  of  human  character,  to  purify  and  unite  them  by  means  of  a 
higher  unity,  and,  according  to  the  fitness  of  the  peculiar  fundamental 
tendencies  of  human  nature,  to  operate  through  these  for  the  realization 
of  the  ideal  of  Man,  and  the  exhibition  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the 
human  race  through  all  ages.  We  must  oppose  ourselves  to  a  rigid  dog- 
matic mode  of  conception,  which  refuses  to  acknowledge  historical  condi- 
tions in  the  developing  process  of  revelation,  and  the  process  of  a  genetic 
development;  but  we  must  also  protest  against  a  false  pragmatism,  which 
would  find  in  the  historical  conditions  an  explanation  of  what  can  only 
be  understood  as  the  result  of  the  influence  of  Christ's  spirit;  which  con- 
verts what  is  original  into  something  derived,  and  the  apostolic,  by  an 
analysis  effected  by  the  sheerest  arbitrariness,  into  something  post-apos- 
tolic, a  method,  the  fundamental  error  of  which  consists  in  this,  that  for 
the  genuine  historical  Christ,  who  is  presupposed  by  the  whole  developing 
process  of  the  Christian  church,  it  substitutes  an  undefined  phantom. 

In  the  development  of  the  original  Christian  doctrine,  we  can  specially 
distinguish  three  peculiar  fundamental  tendencies,  the  Pauline,  the 
Jacobean  (between  which  the  Petrine  forms  an  intermediate  link),  and 
the  Johannean.*  We  wish  first  to  review  the  Pauline  form  of  doctrine, 
since  in  this  we  find  the  fullest  and  most  complete  development  of 
Christian  truth,  which  will  best  serve  as  the  basis  of  comparison  in 
tracing  the  leading  tendencies  of  the  other  apostles. 

*  Dr.  Nitzscb,  in  reference  to  the  several  types  of  apostolic  doctrine,  admirably  remarks 
— "  To  disown  them  in  favor  of  a  one-sided  dogmatism,  is  to  abandon  that  completenesi 


THE   PAULINE   DOCTRINE.  381 


CHAPTEK  I. 


THE   PAULINE   DOCTRINE. 


In  order  to  develop  genetically  the  peculiar  system  of  this  apostle,  we 
must  take  into  consideration  the  peculiar  qualities  of  his* ardent  and  pro- 
found mind — the  peculiar  education  which  formed  him  in  the  Pharisaic 
schools  to  a  dialectic  and  systematic  development  of  his  doctrinal  subject- 
matter — the  peculiar  manner  in  which  lie  was  led  from  the  most  rigorous 
Judaism  to  faith  in  the  gospel,*  by  a  powerful  impression  on  his  soul  which 
formed  a  grand  crisis  in  his  history.  We  must  recollect  the  peculiarity  of 
his  sphere  of  action  as  an  apostle,  in  which  he  had  to  oppose  an  adulteration 
of  Christianity  arising  from  a  mixture  of  those  views  which  he  himself 
had  held  before  his  conversion.  In  reference  to  the  sources  from  which 
he  derived  his  knowledge  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  we  must  also  bear 
in  mind  what  he  says  respecting  his  independence  and  separate  standing 
as  a  teacher  of  the  gospel.  There  is  no  doubt,  for  he  occasionally  alludes 
to  it,  that  he  had  met  with  a  traditionary  record  of  the  sayings,  actions, 
and  precepts  of  Christ,  and  these  formed  the  materials  for  the  develop- 
ment of  bis  Christian  knowledge,  (pp.  101-103) ;  but  the  Spirit  promised 
by  Christ  to  his  disciples,  who  was  to  disclose  to  them  the  whole  mean- 
ing and  extent  of  the  truth  announced  by  him,  enlightened  Paul  in  an 
independent  manner,  so  as  to  develop  the  truths  of  which  the  germ  was 
contained  in  those  traditions,  and  form  them  into  one  whole  with  the 
earlier  divine  revelations,  and  with  the  truths  implanted  in  the  original 
constitution  of  man  as  a  religious  being.  Those  who  blame  him  for 
blending  foreign  Jewish  elements  with  Christianity,  entirely  misunder- 
stand that  apostle,  who,  above  all  others,  most  clearly  perceived  the  op- 
position of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  methods,  and  gave  that  opposition 
the  fullest  development.  Nor  does  it  in  the  least  justify  their  censures 
that  he  made  use  of  certain  Jewish  elements,  which  contained  nothing 
at  variance  with  Christianity,  but  on  the  contrary,  were  designed  to 
serve  as  the  groundwork  of  the  new  dispensation.  A  comparison  of  the 
Pauline  leading  ideas  with  the  words  of  Christ  as  reported  by  Matthew 
and  Luke,  proves  that  the  germs  of  the  former  are  contained  in  the 
latter,  if  we  do  not  invert  the  order  of  things  and  regard  those  words 
which  could  come  from  no  human  spirit,  which  bear  on  them  the  unde- 
niable marks  of  inimitable  originality,  words  of  inexhaustible  contents, 
in  which  the  striving  of  a  sound  mind  can  only  be  for  ever  penetrating 

and  solidity  which  these  modes  of  contemplating  the  Christian  faith  impart  while  they  re- 
ciprocally complete  one  another ;  it  is  to  slight  that  by  which  scripture  truth  maintains  its 
calm  elevation  above  all  conflicting  systems." — See  die  theologische  Zeiischrift,  edited  by 
Bchleiermacher,  De  "Wette,  and  Lttcke.     1822,  No.  3,  p.  68.      *  See  p.  79. 


382  THE   PAULINE   DOCTRINE. 

deeper  and  deeper — if  we  do  not  regard  such  words  as  nothing  more 
than  a  reflection  of  the  tendencies  that  first  flowed  from  that  original 
spirit.  But  that  which  moved  before  the  spiritual  vision  of  Paul,  the 
image  of  Christ  in  whose  countenance  there  shone  for  him  the  glory  of 
God,  that  which  compelled  his  proud  and  lofty  spirit,  after  long  resist- 
ance, to  do  homage  and  bow  itself  in  all  humility,  was  no  phantom, 
was  not  the,  to  him  well  known,  reflected  image  of  the  divine  race  of 
men. 

Those  which  constituted  the  preparative  convictions  for  Paul's  whole 
Christian  life,  and  determined  his  transition  from  Judaism  to  Christian- 
ity, laid  also  the  foundation  for  the  peculiar  form  in  which  the  latter  was 
received  and  intellectually  apprehended  by  him.  Here  we  find  the 
natural  central  point,  from  which  we  proceed  in  the  development  of  his 
doctrine.  The  ideas  of  "law,"  vo/iog,  and  "righteousness,"  dtfcaioovvr), 
form  the  connexion  as  well  as  the  opposition  of  his  earlier  and  his 
later  views.  The  term  ducaioovvrj  in  the  Old  Testament  sense,  desig- 
nates the  perfect  theocratic  way  of  thinking  and  life,  and  also  that  un- 
restricted theocratic  right  of  citizenship  which  entitled  to  a  participation 
in  the  blessings  of  the  community,  and  to  eternal  felicity.  According  to  his 
former  views,  Paul  believed  that  he  had  acquired  a  title  to  the  epithet 
"righteous,"  diicaiog,  by  the  strict  observance  of  the  law;  as,  in  truth, 
the  Pharisees,  to  whom  he  belonged,  placed  their  confidence  and  indulged 
their  pride  in  that  observance,  while  they  guarded  against  the  violation 
of  the  law  by  a  variety  of  prohibitions.  He  was,  as  he  himself  asserts 
(Philip,  iii.)  blameless  as  far  as  related  to  this  legal  righteousness.  And 
now  from  his  Christian  point  of  view  the  epithet  "  righteous,"*  was  in 
his  esteem  the  highest  that  could  be  given  to  a  human  being,  and  "  right- 
eousness "  expressed  complete  fitness  for  participation  in  all  the  privi- 
leges and  blessings  of  the  Theocracy,  and  consequently  of  salvation,  of 
"  life,"  Ztorj.  "  Righteousness"  and  "  life"  were  always  in  his  mind  cor- 
relative ideas.  But  his  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  this  righteousness 
had  undergone  a  total  revolution  since  he  was  convinced  of  the  insuffi- 
ciency and  nullity  of  that  which  he  had  before  distinguished  by  this 
name.  That  "  legal  righteousness,"  6iKaioovvr\  vo[UK7),  he  now  regarded 
as  only  an  apparent  righteousness,  which  might  satisfy  human  require- 
ments, but  could  not,  however  plausible,  deceive  a  holy  God,  and  there- 
fore was  of  no  avail  in  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  was  hence- 
forth his  fundamental  principle,  that  no  man  by  such  works  as  he  might 
be  able  to  accomplish  under  the  guidance  and  aid  of  the  law,  could  attain 


*  Paul  was  very  far  from  employing  the  word  Slkcuoovvti  merely  to  designate  a  subor- 
dinate moral  condition, like  the  later  anti-Jewish  Gnostics,  for  he  always  proceeded  on  the 
theocratical  principle8  of  the  Old  Testament.  I  cannot  therefore  admit  that,  in  Rom.  v.  7, 
a  higher  degree  of  morality  is  intended  by  the  word  "  good"  than  by  the  word  "righteous." 
The  opposite  is  evident,  from  the  manner  in  which  Paul  places  these  words  together  in 
Rom.  vii.  12. 


THE  PAULINE   DOCTRINE.  383 

a  righteousness*  that  would  avail  before  God.f  This  idea  which  marks 
the  opposition  between  his  earlier  and  later  views,  it  was  his  main  object 
to  develop  in  arguing  with  his  Judaizing  opponents.         . 

Now  he  certainly  in  this  controversy  first  treated  of  the  "works  of 
the  law"  as  an  observance  of  the  ritual  prescriptions  of  the  law ;  for  his 
adversaries  wished  to  impose  even  these  on  the  believing  Gentiles  as  be- 
longing to  the  true  righteousness,  and  as  essential  to  fitness  for  the  king- 
dom of  God  ;  and  this  it  was  which  he  would  not  allow.  Yet  from  the 
light  of  Judaism  alone,  such  a  distinction  between  the  ceremonial  and 
moral  law  was  not  possible,  for  everything  was  contemplated  as  a  divine 
command  ;  both  equally  involved  obedience  to  the  divine  revealed  will, 
and  both  required  a  disposition  of  sincere  piety.J  Though  Paul  in  dif- 
ferent passages  and  references  had  sometimes  the  ritual,  and  at  other 
times  the  moral  portion  of  the  law  especially  in  his  thoughts,  yet  the 
same  general  idea  lies  always  at  the  basis  of  his  reasonings.  When  he 
had  occasion,  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  to  impugn  the  justifying 
power  and  continued  obligation  of  the  ceremonial  law,  still  his-argumen- 
tation  proceeds  on  the  whole  idea  of  the  law.  It  is  the  idea  of  an  exter- 
nally prescribed  rule  of  action,  the  law  as  commanding,  but  which  by 
its  commands  can  never  produce  an  internal  alteration  in  man.  Satisfac- 
tion can  be  given  to  the  law — which  indeed  is  true  of  every  law  as  such 
— only  by  perfect  obedience.  Now  since  no  man  is  able  to  effect  the 
obedience  thus  required  by  the  divine  law,  it  of  course  pronounces  con- 
demnation on  all  as  guilty  of  its  violation  ;  Gal.  hi.  10.  This  is  true  of 
the  imperative  moral  law  which  is  revealed  in  the  conscience,  not  less 
than  of  particular  injunctions  of  this  law  exhibited  in  the  Old  Testament 
theocratic  form,  as  Paul  himself  applies  it,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
to  the  law  written  on  the  hearts  of  men,  the  law  of  conscience,  which, 
as  he  asserts,  calls  forth  the  consciousness  of  guilt  in  those  to  whom  the 
law  was  not  given  in  the  external  theocratic  form. 

In  reference  to  the  whole  idea  of  the  law  as  the  revelation  of  the 
divine  requirements  to  man  in  the  form  of  imperative  statutes,  the. apos- 
tle says,  Gal.  iii.  21,  that  if  it  could  make  men  inwardly  alive,  if  it  could 
impart  a  true  internal  life  from  which  all  goodness  would  spontaneously 
proceed,  then  it  would  be  right  to  speak  of  a  righteousness  proceeding 
from  the  law.  Yet  in  that  case,  if  man  were  truly  in  harmony  with  the 
requirements  of  the  law  in  the  constitution  of  his  internal  life,  it  could 

*  "We  use  the  word  righteousness  as  a  translation  of  Hebraic  and  Hellenic  terms,  in  a 
sense  answering  only  to  the  original  signification  of  the  German  word  gerecht,  that  which 
is  as  it  should  be. 

f  The  Pauline  formula,  ov  diKaiovrai  huntov  rov  6eov  ef  ipyuv  voftov  or  in  vofiov  nuaa 
ad.p^  was  most  probably  adopted  by  Paul  at  a  very  early  period,  having  been  suggested  by 
the  antithetic  development  of  his  Christian  convictions,  which  had  their  origin  in  the  mode 
of  his  conversion. 

%  When  Christ,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  say9  that  he  came  not  to  destroy  the  law 
or  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfil,  he  certainly  made  no  such  distinction.  See  Life  of  Christ, 
p.  230. 


384  JUSTIFICATION   AND   WORKS   OP   THE   LAW. 

not  be  properly  said  that  he  obtained  a  righteousness  available  before 
God  by  the  works  of  the  law ;  for  the  external  rather  supposes  the  inter- 
nal— the  disposition  of  true  righteousness  which  has  already  become 
manifest  of  itself  to  the  eye  of  Omniscience  ;*  the  internal  cannot  pro- 
ceed from  the  external,  but  the  external  must  proceed  from  the  internal. 
Still,  in  this  case,  works  corresponding  to  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
would  be  the  necessary  marks  of  the  truly  righteous  and  of  the  right- 
eousness that  avails  before  God,  something  that  is  truly  well-pleasing  to 
God.  But  in  the  present  condition  of  man,  this  is  nowhere  to  be  found. 
The  disposition  corresponding  to  the  requirements  of  the  law  does  not 
exist  in  man,  and  an  external  law  cannot  produce  a  change  internally, 
cannot  communicate  power  for  fulfilling  its  own  commands,  nor  over- 
come the  opposition  that  exists  in  the  disposition.  Even  if  a  man  be 
influenced  by  sensuous  impulses,  by  carnal  fear  or  hope,  by  vanity  which 
would  commend  itself  to  God  or  man,  to  accomplish  a  formal  fulfilment 
of  what  is  commanded,  still  the  disposition  required  by  the  spirit  of  the 
law  would  be  wanting.  The  works  resulting  from  such  attempts,  whether 
they  relate  to  the  moral  or  to  the  ritual  part  of  the  law,  lack  the  dis- 
position which  is  the  mark  of  the  genuine  righteousness  that  presents 
itself  as  such  before  a  holy  God.  It  results  from  this  connexion  of  ideas, 
that  though  "  works  of  the  law"  may  in  themselves  be  works  which 
really  exhibit  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  they  would  be  considered  by  Paul 
as  acts  of  a  merely  apparent,  external,  and  not  internal,  obedieoce ;  they 
would  bear  the  impress  of  mere  legality  in  opposition  to  true  piety  and 
morality.  The  "  works  of  the  law"  are  not  equivalent  to  "  good  works," 
but  opposed  to  them;  Eph.  ii.  10.  Of  such  a  legal  righteousness  he 
speaks  when  he  says,  Phil.  iii.  6,  that  in  this  respect  he  had  been  a  Phar- 

*  This  is  acknowledged  by  Aristotle ;  oti  del  r&  SUaia  irpdrrovrac  ditcalovc  ylvsadai. 
— tu  npay/uara  dinaia  Myerai,  orav  r)  toiuvto,  ola  av  6  dinaioc  npugeiev'  dUaioc  6'  koTlv 
ovx  6  ravra  npuTTcov,  uXKu  nal  6  ovtu  npdrruv  uc  ol  dinaioi,  irpdrrovatv,  (it  is  necessary 
that  those  who  do  righteously  should  be  righteous.  Deeds  are  said  to  be  righteous  when 
they  are  such  as  the  righteous  man  should  do  ;  and  not  he  who  does  such  things  is  right- 
eous, but  he  who  also  so  does  as  the  righteous  do.) — Eth.  Nich.  ii.  3.  As  Paul  contrasts 
the  righteousness  of  the  law  and  that  of  true  righteousness,  so  Aristotle  contrasts  the 
r&  inrb  tuv  voftuv  Teray/iEva  ttoieIv,  (the  things  prescribed  by  the  laws  to  be  done,)  and 
the  True  exovTa  Trpdrreiv  iitaaTa.,  wot'  elvai  dyadov,  Myo>  <5'  olov  did  npoaipeoLV  (the  fypovelv 
t&  tov  nvEV/LtaTOC,  "  the  minding  the  things  of  the  Spirit,"  from  which  all  right  action  must 
proceed;  Rom.  viii.  5.)  nal  avTuv  kvEKa  tuv  npaTTopsvuv.  T?)v  fj.lv  npoaipsoiv  opdr/v  noiel 
t)  dpETij,  (somehow  having  to  do  everything,  just  to  be  good ;  but  I  speak  of  such  an  one  as 
acts  from  choice  and  for  the  sake  of  the  very  things  that  are  done.  Vi?iue  makes  the  choice 
right.)  But  Christianity  elevates  the  reference  of  the  mind  above  the  reflection  of  the 
good  in  the  "things  done,"  npaTTofXEva,  to  the  "good  itself,"  avrb  dyadov,  the  original 
source  and  archetype  of  all  good  in  God,  to  communion  with  God,  and  the  exhibition  of 
this  communion  in  the  actions  of  the  life.  It  is  the  disposition  of  the  truly  righteous  which 
refers  everything  to  the  glory  of  God.  Morality  is  a  manifestation  and  exhibition  of  the 
divine  life.  And  Christianity  points  out  the  process  of  development  through  which  a  man, 
by  means  of  regeneration,  may  attain  to  that  "  virtue,"  dpcTrj,  which  produces  the  right 
"  choice,"  npoaipscic. 


JUSTIFICATION   AND   WORKS    OF   TUB  LAW.  386 

isee  without  blame,  though  viewing  it  afterwards  from  the  Christian 
point  of  view  he  esteemed  it  as  perfectly  nugatory.  Thus,  in  a  two-fr>ld 
sense,  Paul  could  say  that  by  works  of  the  law  no  man  could  be  justified 
before  God.  Taking  the  expression  icorks  of  the  law  in  an  ideal  sense, 
no  man  can  perform  such  works  as  are  required  by  the  law ;  taking  it 
in  an  empirical  sense,  those  works  which  are  actually  performed  in  for- 
mal obedience  to  the  law  are  not  such  as  correspond  to  its  spirit  and  re- 
quirements. 

If  the  assertion  of  an  insufficiency  of  the  righteousness  of  the  law  be 
made  without  more  exactly  defining  it,  it  may  be  supposed  to  mean,  that 
the  moral  commands  of  the  law  exhibit  only  an  inferior  moral  status,  and 
on  that  account  can  lead  no  one  to  true  righteousness.  According  to 
this  supposition,  our  judgment  of  the  actual  purpose  of  Christianity 
would  take  a  particular  direction,  and  we  should  consider  the  exhibition 
of  a  complete  system  of  morals,  as  forming  its  essential  preeminence 
over  the  former  dispensation.  But  from  the  manner  in  which  Paul 
makes  this  assertion,  it  is  evident  that  this  is  not  his  meaning. "  He  never 
complains  of  the  law  as  defective  in  this  respect,  but  on  the  contrary 
eulogizes  it  as  in  itself  holy  and  good  ;  Rom.  vii.  12.  The  single  com- 
mandment of  love  which  stands  at  the  head  of  the  law,  contains  in  fact 
everything  (Romans  xiii.  9)  essential  to  moral  perfection,  and  whoever 
fulfilled  this  would  be  truly  righteous.  And  in  the  first  two  chapters  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  his  aim  is  to  prove  that  the  Jews  in  relation 
to  their  law,  as  well  as  the  Gentiles  in  relation  to  the  moral  law  inscribed 
on  their  hearts,  were  not  wanting  in  their  knowledge  of  what  was  good, 
but  in  the  power  of  will  to  perform  what  they  knew  to  be  good.  The 
reason  why  the  law  could  not  produce  true  righteousness,  consisted  in 
the  fact  that  it  presented  goodness  only  in  the  form  of  an  external  com- 
mand, and  also  in  the  relation  of  the  command  to  the  moral  condition  of 
those  to  whom  the  law  was  given.  This  leads  us  to  the  central  point  of 
the  Pauline  Anthropology  ;  namely,  human  nature  as  estranged  from  the 
divine  life  and  standing  in  opposition  to  the  requirements  of  the.  law ; 
whether  the  eternal  moral  law,  or  the  law  in.  its  outward  theocratical 
form.     This  opposition  we  must  now  examine  more  minutely. 

That  principle  in  human  nature  which  strives  against  the  fulfilment 
of  the  law,  the  apostle  generally  distinguishes  by  the  name  of  the  Flesh, 
and  the  man  in  whom  this  principle  predominates,  or  the  man  whose 
mind  is  not  yet  transformed  by  Christianity,  by  the  name  of  "carnal," 
oapKinbc,  or  "  minding  the  things  of  the  flesh,"  ra  rfjg  aapubc  (ppov&v. 
He  represents  this  principle  striviug  against  the  law  as  a  law  in  the  mem- 
bers, which  opposes  the  law  of  reason ;  he  speaks  of  "  the  motions  of  sin 
in  the  members"  which  obstructed  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  acknowl- 
edged by  the  mind  ;  Romans  vii.  5.  The  body  as  the  seat  of  sinful  de- 
sires he  calls  the  "  body  of  sin,"  aCz\ia  rr\c  d/xaprlac,  Rom*  vi.  6,  the 
"  body  of  the  flesh,"  otifia  rfjg  oapiibc,  Col.  ii.  11.  Hence  we  might  con- 
elude,  that  the  apostle  deduced  sin  from  the  opposition  between  sense 


386  MEANING  OF  THE  TERM  2APH. 

and  spirit  in  human  nature,  and  that  he  considered  evil  as  a  necessary 
transition-point  in  the  development  of  human  nature,  till  spirit  acquired 
the  perfect  ascendency.  But  this  could  not  be  the  apostle's  meaning, 
for  he  considered  this  conflict  between  reason  and  sense,  not  as  founded 
in  the  original  nature  of  man,  but  as  the  consequence  of  a  free  departure 
from  his  original  destination,  as  something  for  which  he  was  guilty  ;  and 
here  we  see  of  what  practical  importance  in  the  Pauline  doctrine  is  the 
supposition  of  an  original  perfection  in  man  and  a  fall  from  it.  Hence 
we  must  consider  in  every  instance,  the  preponderance  of  sensuous  incli- 
nation over  reason,  according  to  Paul's  view,  only  as  an  essential  conse- 
quence of  the  first  moral  disunion. 

But  there  are  also  in  general  many  things  to  be  urged  against  the 
supposition  that  when  he  specifies  the  "  flesh,"  aap%,  as  the  source  of  sin, 
he  meant  nothing  but  sensuousness  in  opposition  to  the  spiritual  princi- 
ple in  man.  In  Gal.  v.  20,  among  the  works  of  the  "flesh,"  he  mentions 
"  divisions,"  dixoaraatai,  which  can  by  no  means  all  be  attributed  to 
sensuous  impulses.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  to  argue  in  favor  of  such  an 
interpretation  by  saying,  that  Paul  had  in  view  those  divisions  which  he 
traced  to  sensuous  impulses,  to  a  sensuous  way  of  thinking,  to  a  Judaism 
that  adhered  to  sensuous  objects,  and  opposed  the  more  spiritual  concep- 
tions of  Christianity.  But  it  appears  still  more  surprising  that  he  traces 
everything,  in  that  erroneous  tendency  which  he  opposed  in  the  church 
at  Colossse,  to  the  flesh,  to  a  "  fleshly  mind,"  vovg  oapniK.og ;  and  here  it 
would  be  difficult  to  attribute  everything  to  a  sensuous  addictedness,  for 
We  meet  on  the  contrary  with  a  morbid  striving  at  freedom  from  the 
senses,  an  ascetic  tendency  which  would  defraud  the  bodily  appetites  of 
their  just  claims.  And  even  if  in  all  these  attempts  we  detected  the  work- 
ings of  a  refined  sensuality,  that  tendency  which,  while  cleaving  to  out- 
ward objects,  could  not  rise  to  the  pure  inward  religion  of  the  spirit ;  still 
we  find  that  in  the  Corinthian  church  also,  the  apostle  traced  to  the  flesh 
everything  which  either  openly  or  secretly  opposed  Christianity,  not  ex- 
cepting even  the  speculative  Grecian  tendency,  the  "  seeking  after  wisdom," 
ao<ptav  ^rjTelv,  which  treated  the  simple  gospel  with  contempt.  From  all 
these  considerations,  we  may  infer  with  certainty  that  something  more  than 
sensuousness  was  included  in  the  Pauline  idea  of  flesh.  And  it  confirms 
this  conclusion,  that  Paul  not  only  uses  the  phrase  "  to  walk  as  men,"  Kara 
avdpoynov  Trepinareiv,  as  equivalent  to  "  walking  after  the  flesh,"  Kara 
odpica  TrepnraTEiv,  but  also  employs  the  designation  "natural  man," 
avOpunog  xjjvxinbg  as  equivalent  to  "  carnal  man,"  avdpunog  oapKinbg,  1 
Cor.  ii.  14.  All  this  relates  only  to  the  opposition  of  the  Human  to  the 
Divine,  whether  the  oapt;  or  the  ^vxq  against  the  deiov  irvevfia.  Paul 
detected  in  the  philosophic  conceit  of  the  Greeks,  which,  with  all  its  striv- 
ing, could  not  pass  beyond  the  bounds  of  earthly  existence,  and  satisfied 
itself  without  finding  the  highest  good  which  alone  can  give  true  satis- 
faction to  the  mind,  and  he  detected  in  the  arrogance  of  the  imaginary 
legal  righteousness  of  the  Jews,  the  same  principle  of  the  flesh  that  he 


ON    HUMAN    DEPRAVITY.  387 

found  in  the  thirst  for  sensuous  pleasure.  There  was  a  wisdom  after 
the  flesh,  oo<pia  Kara  adpna,  a  righteousness  after  the  flesh,  fimaioovvT) 
Kara  odptca.  These  ideas,  "flesh,"  "world,"  "spirit  of  the  world," 
adp$,  koctjuoc,  -nvevjia  tov  kog\iov,  correspond  to  one  another.  Thus  the 
term  flesh  denotes  human  nature  generally,  in  its  state  of  estrangement 
from  the  divine  life,  a  tendency  towards  the  world  cut  loose  from  the 
tendency  towards  God ;  and  from  this  designation  we  cannot  determine 
what  Paul  considered  as  the  one  fundamental  tendency  from  which  all 
the  forms  of  sin  might  be  deduced,  or  whether  he  held  in  general  that 
there  was  any  one  such  source.  On  this  last  point  we  find  no  precise 
explanation  in  his  writings.  But  as  he  represented  the  living  to  God, 
to  Christ,  (6ea>,  Xpiorio  ^fjv,)  to  be  the  principle  of  good  in  man,  it  is  im- 
plied that  the  living  to  one's  self,  (eavrco  £?/v,)  the  self-seeking  tendency 
(the  eyw  in  relation  to  self,  not  subordinating  itself  to  the  religious  sen- 
timent, Gal.  ii.  20),  was  the  fundamental  tendency  of  evil.  Now,  partly 
because  the  power  of  the  sinful  principle  in  the  present  condition  of 
human  nature  makes  itself  known  by  the  conflict  of  sensuous  inclinations 
with  the  law  acknowledged  by  the  Spirit — partly  because  Christianity 
first  spread  itself  among  those  classes  in  which  it  had  to  combat  most  of 
all  with  the  power  of  rude  sensuality — partly  because  the  body  serves  as 
the  organ  of  the  sinful  tendency  which  has  the  mastery  in  the  soul,  and  the 
power  of  sinful  habit  continues  in  it,  with  a  sort  of  self-subsistence,  even 
after  the  soul  has  been  made  partaker  of  a  higher  life  ; — on  all  these  ac- 
counts, Paul  often  employs  the  term  flesh  to  express  the  whole  being  of  sin. 
Paul  commonly  refers  only  to  the  consciousness  of  sin  as  an  universal 
fact  in  human  nature,  and  appeals  to  what  every  man  may  know  from  hie 
own  inward  experience.  By  this  means  alone  could  his  preaching  every- 
where find  acceptance,  because  it  was  based  on  a  fundamental  truth, 
which  was  not  received  from  tradition,  nor  on  the  testimony  of  foreign 
authority,  but  manifested  itself  in  the  consciousness  of  every  individual. 
The  consciousness  of  this  schism  in  human  nature,  and  the  feeling  arising 
out  of  it  of  the  need  of  redemption,  remains  in  its  unchangeable  validity, 
independent  of  all  historical  tradition,  even  though  man  must  acknowledge 
this  schism  as  a  given  fact  without  being  able  to  explain  its  origin.  This 
internal  fact,  to  which  Paul  appealed  as  a  matter  of  immediate  conscious- 
ness, we  must  distinguish  from  all  modes  of  explaining  it,*  which  may 

*  This  fact,  the  only  one  necessary  to  be  presupposed  in  order  to  faith  in  a  Redeemer, 
is  in  itself  independent  of  all  investigations  respecting  the  derivation  of  the  human  race : 
and,  as  something  known  by  immediate  inward  experience,  belongs  to  a.  province  of  life 
which  lies  out  of  the  range  of  all  speculation,  or  of  inquiries  into  natural  science  and  his- 
tory. And  the  doctrine  of  a  pre-existence  of  souls,  though  insufficient  to  explain  this 
fact,  leaves  it  untouched,  or  even  requires  to  be  explained  by  it.  Tho  same  is  also  true  of 
Muller's  peculiar  modification  of  this  doctrine,  viz.,  preexistence  in  some  wholly  undefined, 
embryonic  state  of  being.  In  his  attempt  to  solve  one  of  the  most  difficult  of  problems,  to 
maintain  moral  freedom  without  sophistry,  I  must  confess  he  has  done  himself  great  credit 
by  his  method  of  solution,  though  I  am  very  little  disposed  to  agreo  with  it. — It  is  essen- 
tial to   Christianity  that  it  rests  on  an  historical  basis  of  fact,    wbbh,   in  order  to  be 


388  THE    ORIGINAL    STATE    OF    MAN. 

appear  untenable,  even  while  the  fact  itself,  and  the  sense  of  a  need  of 
redemption  springing  out  of  it,  and  the  faith  in  a  Redeemer  proceeding 
from  that  sense  of  need,  retain  their  value  undimished.  Hence  it  is  very 
natural,  and  a  proof  of  the  apostle's  wisdom,  that  he  treats  in  so  few  pas- 
sages of  the  original  perfection  of  the  first  man,  and  of  the  first  sin,  com- 
pared with  the  number  which  relate  to  this  universal  fact.  But  it  by  no 
means  follows,  that  what  he  says  on  this  subject  has  a  merely  accidental 
connexion  with  his  Christian  convictions  ;  that  everything  which  he  says 
of  the  first  man,  only  served  as  a  foil,  borrowed  from  the  notions  in  vogue 
among  the  Jews,  to  set  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  in  a  more  striking 
light  by  the  contrast.  We  may  rather  affirm  that  this  fact  is  intimately 
and  closely  connected  with  the  whole  Christian  consciousness  of  the 
apostle,  for  it  lies  everywhere  at  the  basis,  where  he  represents  this  schism 
not  as  something  included  in  the  plan  of  the  divine  creation  itself,  and 
necessary  in  the  development  of  human  nature,  but  as  something  for  which 
man  is  guilty.  To  justify  the  holiness  and  love  of  God,  it  must  have  been 
important  for  him  to  be  able  to  say,  that  man  was  not  created  in  this  con- 
dition by  God,  but  that  it  originated  in  an  abuse  of  the  freedom  bestowed 
upon  him.* 

But  this  view  of  the  subject  is  not  admissible  if,  as  many  have  main, 
tained,  Paul  exhibited  the  first  man  only  as  a  representative  of  human 
nature  generally,  and  wished  to  show  by  his  example  how,  by  virtue  of 
the  original  constitution  of  human  nature,  lust  appeared  in  opposition  to 
the  rational  principle  or  to  the  capability  for  divine  knowledge — that  thia 

acknowledged  in  its  true  meaning,  only  presupposes  experiences  which  every  man  can 
make  for  himself. 

*  Krabbe,  a  friend  specially  dear  to  me,  in  his  excellent  work,  Die  Lchre  ,von  der 
Siinde,  p.  56,  remarks,  that  he  does  not  clearly  understand  what  are  my  views  respecting 
the  origination  of  sin  in  the  primitive  state  of  man.  But  it  was  foreign  to  my  object — 
since  I  only  wished  to  develop  the  doctrines  of  the  apostle  Paul  in  the  form  in  which  they 
were  conceived  and  represented  by  him,  and  their  mutual  connexion — to  explain  myself 
further  on  this  topic,  and  to  state,  as  I  must  have  done  as  a  systematic  theologian,  that, 
according  to  my  conviction,  the  origin  of  evil  can  only  be  understood  as  a  fact,  a  fact  pos- 
sible by  virtue  of  the  freedom  belonging  to  a  created  being,  but  not  to  be  otherwise 
deduced  or  explained.  It  lies  in  the  idea  of  evil,  that  it  is  an  utterly  inexplicable  thing, 
and  whoever  would  explain  it  nullifies  the  very  idea  of  it.  It  is  not  the  limits  of  our 
knowledge  which  make  the  origin  of  sin  something  inexplicable  to  us,  but  it  follows  from 
the  essential  nature  of  sin  as  an  act  of  free  will,  that  it  must  remain  to  all  eternity  an  in- 
explicable fact.  It  can  only  be  understood  empirically  by  means  of  the  moral  self-con- 
Bciousness.  To  kpurrifia,  o  tcuvtwv  alriov  kari  KfiKtJv,  fiullov  8e  r)  irepl  tovtov  uS'lc,  hv  ry 
^n>XV  iyy^yvo^iivrj,  tjv  el  firj  ti$  i^aipedrjaerai,  ttjc  dlrjduac  ovtuc  ov  /it}  nore  rvxoi,  —  (the 
enquiry,  what  is  the  cause  of  all  evils,  or  rather  the  labor-pains  on  this  subject,  which  are 
begotten  in  the  soul,  and  of  which  if  the  soul  be  not  relieved  it  can  never  attain  to  real 
truth.)  Ep.  ii.  Platon.  Whoever  in  his  arrogant  littleness  can  satisfy  himself  with  muti- 
lating human  nature  and  reducing  it  to  a  minimum,  with  substituting  a  certain  form  of 
speculative  thought  in  place  of  the  whole  man,  may  adjust,  after  his  own  fashion,  all  the 
phenomena  in  the  moral  world  ;  but  the  unconquerable  voice  of  Nature  will  know  how  to 
assort  her  rights  against  all  such  fine-spun  theories. 


ON   THE   FALL.  369 

is  constantly  repeated  in  the  case  of  every  individual,  in  order  that  man, 
from  the  consciousness  of  this  opposition,  may  attain  through  redemption 
to  the  efficient  supremacy  of  religious  conviction  in  his  nature.  This  chain 
of  ideas  we  should  certainly  find  in  Paul's  writings,  if  it  could  be  proved 
that,  in  Rom.  vii.  9,  and  If.,  he  alluded  to  the  condition  of  original  inno- 
cence ;  and  wished  to  shew  how  by  the  commandment  that  state  of 
childlike  ingenuousness  was  removed,  and  the  slumbering  lust  was  brought 
into  consciousness  and  raised  to  activity.  But  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the 
apostle,  where-he  speaks  of  an  apparent  freedom  from  guilt,  in  which  the 
principle  of  sinfulness  though  scarcely  developed  lay  at  the  bottom,  had 
in  his  thoughts  that  original  freedom  from  guilt  which  he  rather  describes 
as  sinlessness.  Certainly  he  could  not  have  said  that  by  one  man  sin  came 
into  the  world,  if,  in  Rom.  vii.  9,  he  had  assumed  the  existence  of  sin  already 
in  the  first  man  according  to  his  original  constitution,  as  something 
grounded  in  the  essence  of  human  nature.  In  order  to  reconcile  this, 
something  foreign  must  be  introduced  into  Paul's  train  of  thought,  which 
can  by  no  means  be  shewn  to  belong  to  it.  If  we  proceed  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  a  freedom,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  must  be  allowed  according 
to  this  Pauline  doctrine,  and  a  transition  from  sinlessness  to  sin,  are  some- 
thing inconceivable,  still  we  are  not  justified  in  explaining  Paul  accord- 
ing to  a  representation  of  which  no  trace  can  be  found  in  his  writings, 
not  to  add  that  such  a  view  is  opposed  to  his  moral  and  religious  spirit, 
as  well  as  to  that  of  Christianity  in  general ;  for  according  to  it,  the  con- 
sciousness of  freedom,  and  the  sense  of  guilt  connected  with  it,  could  be 
nothing  else  than  a  necessary  deception  imposed  by  the  Creator  himself 
in  the  development  of  human  nature,  a  self-delusion  unavoidable  to  the 
individual  self-consciousness. 

Paul,  indeed,  says  in  1  Cor.  xv.  46,  that  in  the  development  of  hu- 
manity, the  "natural,"  xpvxtKov,must  go  before  the  "spiritual,"  irvevfia- 
tikov — that  human  nature  as  derived  from  the  earthly  man  must  first 
develop  itself,  and  only  then  should  the  heavenly  man  enter  into  the 
process  of  development,  and  penetrate  it  with  a  new  divine  principle  of 
life.  But  certainly  it  was  not  Paul's  intention  so  to  be  understood,  as  if, 
in  virtue  of  that  earthly  constitution  of  human  nature,  sin  must  form  a 
necessary  transition-point,  that  sinlessness  might  first  proceed  from  Christ, 
which  would  stand  in  direct  contradiction  to  what  we  have  observed 
respecting  the  Pauline  views.  In  this  passage,  according  to  the  con- 
nexion, a  contrast  is  not  principally  intended  between  the  idea  of  one's 
being  under  subjection  to  sin,  and  being  sinless  ;  but  between  being  sub- 
jected to  death,  and  being  raised  above  death.  It  is  only  affirmed  here, 
that  the  first  man  wanted  the  divine  life-giving  spirit  which  first  pro- 
ceeded from  Christ,  which  will  allow  nothing  heterogeneous  to  remain 
along  with  it,  but  communicates  to  whatever  it  comes  in  contact  with,  an 
unchangeable  divine  life.  It  certainly  follows  that  man  must  advance  to 
the  higher  position  of  a  divine  life,  exalted  above  the  domain  of  death. 
But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  sin  was  something  placed  in  the  original 


390  ON   THE   FALL. 

constitution  of  human  nature  ;  that  sin  must  form  a  necessary  transition- 
point  for  that  progressive  development  and  that  exaltation  of  human 
nature  which  afterwards  would  be  accomplished  through  redemption, 
and  which  without  it  could  not  have  been  pi-epared.  We  must  rather 
consider  it  to  be  Paul's  doctrine,  that  man  was  destined  to  raise  himself 
to  the  height  intended  for  him  by  a  perfectly  pure  development  not  denied 
by  sin.  Only  after  sin  had  made  its  appearance,  as  something  which 
ought  not  to  have  come  forth,  did  redeeming  grace  manifest  itself  in  op- 
position to  it,  as  free  compassion  towards  those  who  had  incurred  the 
guilt  of  sin  ;  and  it  is  the  work  of  grace,  not  merely  to  restore  what  had 
been  depraved  by  sin,  which  ought  not  to  have  come  into  being,  but  also 
to  raise  man  to  that  higher  stage  for  which,  by  his  free  acting,  he  ought 
to  have  made  himself  worthy.  But  still  the  restoration  of  the  original 
image  of  God  which  had  been  marred  by  sin,  (Col.  iii.  10  ;  Eph.  iv.  24,) 
always  remains  a  chief  point  in  the  work  to  be  accomplished  by  re- 
demption. The  old  man  is  not  implanted  in  the  original  nature  ot 
the  first  man,  but  was  first  produced  from  sin  striving  against  the  origi- 
nal nature.  The  new  creation  is  conceived  as  a  renovation,  a  restoration 
of  the  original.  Paul  recognises  in  man — if  in  fallen  man,  (Acts  xvii.,) 
certainly  so  much  more  in  the  original  man — an  "  offspring  of  God," 
which  was  destined  to  develop,  and  to  manifest  itself,  and  to  form 
everything  out  of  itself,  without  sin  which  stands  in  contradiction  to 
it.  According  to  all  this,  sin  always  appears  as  something  that  ought 
to  have  remained  far  away  from  the  course  of  human  development. 

Thus,  then,  the  sin  of  the  first  man  has  so  great  significancy  in  Paul's 
connexion  of  ideas,  because  it  was  the  free  act  from  which  a  course  of 
life  proceeded,  in  contradiction  to  the  original  moral  nature  of  man, 
or  to  the  image  of  God  in  that  nature.  When  he  says,  Rom.  v.  12, 
"  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,"  we  shall  most  naturally 
understand  it  (as  he  adds  no  other  limiting  clause)  as  follows:  that 
the  sinful  tendency  of  the  will,  or  the  opposition  between  the  human  and 
the  divine  will,  now  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  hitherto  sinless 
human  nature,  and  propagated  itself  with  the  development  of  the  race 
from  this  first  point.  This  is  according  to  a  law  which  regulates  the 
propagation  of  mankind  as  a  whole,  and  in  the  special  divisions  of  na- 
tions and  families,  without  which  there  could  be  no  history,  no  de- 
velopment of  man  as  a  race ;  but  the  whole  would  be  broken  up  into 
separate  moments  wholly  severed  from  each  other — an  altogether  atomic 
or  nominalistic  view  which  is  refuted  by  an  unprejudiced  examination  of 
history  and  of  life.  And  in  fact,  we  see  Paul  applying  the  same  law, 
when  he  contemplates  evil  in  its  combined  and  reciprocal  effects  in 
the  great  mass  of  mankind,  the  collective  body  of  Jews  or  Greeks. 

All  men  from  that  time  onward  have  sinned,  since  they  have  followed 
the  sinful  tendency  that  has  passed  upon  them  through  the  development 
of  the  race.     In  this  sense,  Paul  says  that  by  the  disobedience  of  one  all 


CONNEXION    BETWEEN    DEATH    ANJL>    SIN.  391 

became  sinners.*  He  also  connects  sin  and  death  together,  and  affirms 
that  with  sin  death  came  into  the  world,  and  had  propagated  itself  among 
all  men.  Now,  according  to  Paul's  views,  this  cannot  be  understood  of 
an  essential  change  in  the  physical  organization  of  man,  as  if  the  body  by 
that  event  first  became  mortal  from  being  immortal,  for  he  expressly 
asserts  the  opposite  in  1  Cor.  xv.  46,  47,  since  he  attributes  to  the  first 
man  "  an  earthy  body,"  o&fia  x°iitbv,  "  a  natural,"  ilwxatbv,  in  con- 
trast with  the  "  spiritual  body,"  od\ia  TrpevflaTiicbv,  of  the  resurrection. 

This  change,  therefore,  can  only  relate,  partly  to  the  mode  and  man- 
ner in  which  the  individual  earthly  existence  now  terminates, the  forcible 
disruption  of  the  connexion  between  soul  and  body  which  we  designate 
by  the  name  of  death,  partly  to  the  manner  in  which  the  necessity  of 
such  a  death  would  appear  to  the  human  mind.  But  both  are  closely 
connected  with  one  another.  As  life,  life  in  communion  with  God,  a  di- 
vine, holy,  happy,  and  imperishable  life,  are  ideas  iudissolubly  connected 
in  the  New  Testament  phraseology,  particularly  in  the  writings  of  Paul 
and  John,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  are  equally  connected  the  ideas  of  sin, 
unhappiness,  and  death.  '  As  mart  in  communion  with  God  becomes  con- 
scious of  a  divine  life  raised  above  all  death  eternal,  and  the  thought  of 
the  interruption  of  life  or  of  annihilation  is  unknown  to  him  ;  so  when 
by  sin  this  connexion  is  broken,  and,  in  estrangement  from  God  as  the 
eternal  fountain  of  life,  he  becomes  conscious  of  existence  limited  to 
itself,  the  thought  of  death  first  springs  up.     Without  this  consciousness 

*  It  is  now,  indeed,  generally  acknowledged,  that  in  the  last  clause  of  Rom.  v.  12,  the 
relative  pronoun  cannot  be  referred  to  Adam."  It  is  also  not  evident  to  me  (as  Rothe,  p. 
32  of  his  acute  essay  on  this  passage,  "Wittenberg,  1836,  has  maintained),  that  eft  u  can- 
not be  translated  "for  that;"  the  original  meaning  of  this  preposition  with  the  dative,  by 
means  of  which  it  expresses  something  conditional,  an  accompaniment,  the  point  of  con- 
nexion for  something,  easily  passes  into  the  sign  of  a  certain  causal  relation ;  and  as  tni 
with  a  dative  signifies  this  causal  relation,  eft  <L  by  an  attraction  may  therefore  signify 
"for  that,"  "because  that."  This  meaning  is  certainly  to  be  adopted  in  2  Cor.  v.  4. 
What  Rothe,  p.  25,  has  said  against  this  construction  in  the  last  passage  is  quite  untenable. 
Nor  does  Philip,  i.  21-24,  contradict  this  interpretation,  for  anxiety  after  eternal  life  by 
no  means  excludes  the  repugnance  necessarily  founded  in  human  nature  against  the  con- 
flict with  death.  Man  would  always  prefer  passing  to  a  higher  state  of  existence  without 
so  violent  a  process  of  transition,  and  the  "  being  burdened"  is  certainly  (what  Rothe 
denies)  quite  as  necessary  and  constant  a  mark  of  the  Christian  life  as  the  "earnestly 
desiring."  I  will  readily  allow  that  Paul  has  made  use  of  this  expression  in  the  Romans 
to  designate  causality,  since  it  corresponds  more  than  any  other  to  the  form  under  which  he 
is  here  thinking  of  causalty.  The  first  original-causality  is  the  sin  of  Adam — the  secondary 
cause,  the  connecting  link  for  this  continuation  of  death  from  Adam  is  the  sinning  of  in- 
dividuals, by  which  the  connexion  between  sin  and  death,  subjectively  considered,  is  con- 
ditioned. Deatli  as  punishment  of  the  first  sin  which  was  committed  with  a  clear  con- 
sciousness of  its  being  a  transgression  of  a  positive  law,  spread  itself,  together  with  the  sin- 
ful tendency,  upon  all  the  posterity  of  Adam,  and  Paul  finds  its  point  of  connexion  with  all 
in  this,  that  all  have  sinned.  The  connexion  between  sin  and  death  is  universal,  running 
through  the  whole  history  of  the  human  race,  because  all  men  have  participated  in  sin. 
It  is  therefore  a  wholly  different  matter  when  a  sinless  being  enters  into  the  development 
of  the  race;  with  such  an  one  the  natural  connexion  between  sin  and  death  could  find  ae 
place. 


392  REVELATION   OF   GOD   IN   CREATION. 

of  estrangement  and  death,  the  transition  from  an  earthly  existence  to  a 
higher — objective  in  itself,  and  subjective  to  the  mind* — would  have  been 
only  the  form  of  a  higher  development  of  life,  a  transfiguration  according 
to  nature,  and  no  violent  revolution.  There  could  not  have  existed  that 
struggle  in  the  nature  of  man,  of  which  Paul  speaks  in  2  Cor.  v.  4.  Thus 
Paul  calls  sin  the  sting  of  death,  1  Cor.  xv.  56,  by  which  he  marks  the 
internal  connexion  between  the  consciousness  of  death  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  guilt;  as  the  wounding  power  of  death  is  founded  in  sin, 
death  as  death,  as  that  terrific  object  to  the  mind  of  man,  exhibits  itself 
only  in  connexion  with  the  consciousness  of  sin. 

,  Paul  certainly  represents  a  corruption  of  human  nature  as  the  conse- 
quence of  the  first  sin,  and  assumes  a  supremacy  of  the  sinful  principle 
in  the  human  race,  but  not  in  such  a  manner  that  the  original  nature  of 
man  as  the  offspring  of  God,  and  created  in  his  image,  has  been  thereby 
destroyed.  Rather  he  supposes  the  existence  in  man  of  two  opposing 
principles — the  predominating  sinful  principle,  and  the  divine  principle  more 
or  less  depressed  and  obscured  yet  manifesting  its  light.  Hence  he  deduces 
an  undeniable  consciousness  of  God,  and  an  equally  undeniable  moral  self- 
consciousness  as  a  radiation  from  the  former.  And  as  he  recognises  an 
original  and  universal  revelation  of  God  to  the  human  consciousness,  so  also 
he  acknowledges  in  human  nature  a  designed  aptitude  to  receive  it ;  as 
there  is  a  self-testimony  of  God,  in  whom  the  spirit  of  man  lives,  moves,  and 
exists,  so  also  there  is  an  original  susceptibility  in  human  nature  corres- 
ponding to  that  testimony.  The  whole  creation  as  a  revelation  of  God, 
especially  of  his  almightiness  and  gopdness,f  is  designed  to  arouse  the  spirit 

*  Krabbe,  in  his  work  already  quoted,  although  the  premises  deduced  by  him  from  1 
Cor.  xv.  45  ought  to  have  led  to  the  same  view  as  mine,  has  yet  opposed  it  (p.  191)  un- 
der the  supposition  that  I  have  not  admitted  an  objective  alteration  of  the  form  of  death, 
but  only  a  subjective  alteration  in  reference  to  the  form  in  which  it  is  represented  to  the 
mind  of  man.  To  guard  against  this  misunderstanding,  I  have  added  several  new  obser- 
vations to  render  my  meaning  more  explicit. 

f  In  Rom.  i.  20,  Paul  first  asserts  in  general,  that  the  invisible  being  of  God  is  mani- 
fested to  the  thinking  spirit  by  the  creation  ;  he  then  specifies  the  revelation  of  his  power, 
and  adds  to  it  the  general  term  "  Godhead,"  deioT-qg,  (on  the  form  of  this  word  see  Riickerr,) 
including  everything  else  which  belongs  to  the  revelation  of  the  idea  of  God,  to  our  con- 
ceptions of  the  divine  attributes,  to  the  "invisible  things  of  God,"  dopara  tov  Oeov.  "We 
cannot  deduce  from  the  words  (for  it  was  not  the  apostle's  intention  to  be  more  definite)  a 
special  reference  to  any  other  divine  attribute ;  but  it  is  not  without  reason  that  he  brings 
forward  the  idea  of  Almightiness,  because  this  first  manifests  itself  in  the  religious  conscious- 
ness developed  by  the  contemplation  of  nature,  and  hence  the  consciousness  of  dependence 
on  a  higher  power  is  the  predominant  sentiment  in  natural  religion.  Still  we  may  infer, 
from  the  term  "were  thankful,"  TjixnpcarTjaav,  in  v.  21,  that  the  goodness  of  God  was 
present  to  his  thoughts,  which  is  favored  by  Acts.  xiv.  1 1.  In  this  result  I  agree  with 
Schneckenburger  in  his  Essay  on  the  Natural  Theology  of  Paul  and  its  sources,  contained 
in  his  Beitrage  zur  Einleitung  iris  K  T.  But  I  cannot  perceive  the  necessity  for  deducing 
the  manner  in  which  Paul  has  expressed  himself,  from  any  other  source  than  from  the 
depths  of  his  own  spirit,  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ ;  and  in  Philo's  far  less  orig- 
inal investigations,  I  can  find  nothing  which  can  serve  to  explain  Paul's  thoughts  and  lan- 
guage, although  I  see  nothing  in  the  use  Schneckenburger  is  disposed  to  make  of  Philo 


THE   TWOFOLD   PRINCIPLE   IN   MAN.  393 

of  man  to  a  perception  of  this  inward  revelation  of  God.  But  since  by  the 
predominant  sinful  tendency  of  man  the  susceptibility  for  this  revelation 
of  God  is  impaired,  he  has  lost  the  ability  to  raise  himself,  by  means  of  the 
feelings  awakened  by  outward  impressions, to  a  development  of  the  idea  of 
God,  to  serve  as  an  organ  for  which  is  the  highest  destiny  of  the  human 
spirit.*  Since  the  consciousness  in  man  of  an  interior  being,  by  virtue 
of  which  he  is  distinct  from  nature,  and,  exalted  above  it,  is  capable  of 
appropriating  the  supernatural,  has  been  depressed  by  sin, — since  he  has 
enslaved  himself  to  that  nature  over  which  he  was  destined  to  rule,f  he 
is  no  longer  able  to  develop  the  feelings  excited  in  his  breast,  of  depend- 
ence on  a  higher  power,  and  of  gratitude  for  the  blessings  bestowed  upon 
him,  so  as  to  believe  in  an  Almighty  God  as  Creator  and  Governor  of 
the  world,  but  he  allows  these  feelings  to  terminate  in  the  created  beings, 
in  the  powers  and  phenomena  of  nature  by  which  they  were  first  excited. 
Thus  originated,  as  Paul  describes  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  idolatry, 
the  deification  of  nature,  which  yet  implies  a  depressed  consciousness  of 
God,  and  to  this,  as  lying  at  its  basis,  Paul  appealed  in  his  discourse  at 
Athens.  This  depression  of  the  consciousness  of  God  by  the  predomin- 
ating consciousness  of  the  world  or  the  sensuous  consciousness  of  self, 
tended  more  and  more  to  the  deterioration  of  man's  moral  nature ;  Rom. 
i.  28.  Yet  this  moral  nature,  as  it  belonged  to  the  essence  of  humanity, 
could  not  be  entirely  obliterated.  It  manifested  itself  in  the  conscience 
as  the  undeniable  emanation  from  the  consciousness  of  God.  According 
to  Paul,  this  is  the  revelation  of  an  internal  law  for  the  life,  and  of  a 
judgment  upon  it,  undeniable  by  man,  even  should  he  not  deduce  from  it 
the  consciousness  of  that  God  who  here  manifests  himself  as  a  hidden 
legislative  and  judging  power.  Men,  in  passing  judgment  on  one  an- 
other, give  evidence  of  the  power  of  that  innate  law  of  their  nature,  and 
condemn  themselves ;  Rom.  ii.  l.J 

for  the  illustration  of  the  New  Testament,  which  tends  to  depreciate  the  latter ;  and  I 
must  entirely  agree  with  his  excellent  remarks  on  the  relation  of  the  Alexandrian-Jewish 
school  to  the  appearance  of  Christianity.  He  also  justly  remarks,  that  those  who  in  their 
folly  think  that  they  can  illustrate  tho  greatest  revolution  in  the  human  race  (the  moral 
creation  effected  by  Christianity)  by  excerpts  from  Philo  (an  attempt  as  rational  as  to  ex- 
plain the  living  principle  by  a  corpse),  must  serve  quite  a  different  object  from  that  which 
they  have  proposed  to  themselves. 

*  The  connexion  of  the  inward  and  outward  revelation  of  God  was  probably  in  the 
mind  of  Paul  when  he  used  the  phrase  "in  them,"  ev  avrolg.     Romans  i.  19. 

\  The  dominion  of  man  over  nature  presupposes  in  its  true  significance  the  free  devel- 
opment of  the  knowledge  of  God,  on  which  the  elevation  of  the  spirit  over  nature  and  its 
affinity  to  God  are  founded,  as  a  means  of  exercising  that  true  dominion. 

\  I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think  that  Paul,  in  this  passage,  has  the  Jews  spec- 
ially in  mind,  who  are  mentioned  in  v.  9.  Had  this  been  the  case,  the  transition  from 
those  of  whom  he  had  been  speaking,  the  Gentiles,  to  this  new  snbject,  the  Jews,  must 
have  been  in  some  way  marked.  But  the  "therefore,"  did,  only  refers  us  to  what  imme- 
diately precedes,  i.  32,  which  relates  to  the  Gentiles,  though  it  does  not  follow  that  Paul 
confined  himself  to  the  same  class  of  Gentiles.  "Since  whoever  knows  the  law  of  God, 
^according  to  which  they  who  do  such  things  are  worthy  of  death),  and  yet  does  what  it 


394  THE  TWOFOLD   PRINCIPLE   IK   MAN. 

We  must  here  take  notice  of  Paul's  trichotomy  of  human  nature, 
We  find,  indeed,  only  one  passage  where  it  is  expressly  mentioned,  (1 
THess.  v.  23,)  but  there  are  several  others  in  which  it  is  indicated.  Though 
among  the  Greeks  the  term  ipvxrj  was  employed  to  denote  the  animal 
principle  of  life  in  distinction  from  the  vovg,  as  the  vovg  corresponds  to 
the  Xoyinbv,  (the  rational  principle,)  yet  we  cannot  suppose  such  a  mode 
of  conception  in  Paul,  as  is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  all  which  can 
be  found  in  his  writings  referable  to  this  subject.  The  "  natural  man," 
ifjvxinb.g,  the  man  in  whom  the  rpvxr]  alone  predominates,  who  is  in  a 
state  corresponding  to  this,  cannot  receive  and  understand  the  things 
revealed  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  All  these  things  must  appear  to  him  as 
foolishness,  for  he  wants  the  sense,  the  organ,  by  which  to  appropriate 
them;  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  The  "  spiritual  man,"  TTvevfiarcKog,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  the  man  in  whom  such  an  organ,  such  a  sense  is  developed  ;  with 
a  sense  allied  to  the  divine  he  is  able  to  receive  divine  things.  Certainly 
we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  "  spiritual  man"  is  to  be  thought  of  as 
one  in  whom  the  ruling  principle  is  the  "  spirit "  (nvevfia)  of  human 
nature,  that  which  is  opposed  to  the  "life,"  i/,tX')-  Without  doubt  we 
must  rather  suppose  the  reference  to  be  to  the  "  Divine  Spirit,"  nvevfta 
delov,  as  that  which  quickens  the  man.  But  yet  we  may  conceive  of  the 
■nvevnarmbg  in  Paul's  sense,  as  the  person  in  whom  what  in  human  nature 
is  the  -rrvevfia  finds  its  natural  development.  We  shall  have  to  consider 
it  as  that  organ  corresponding  to  the  divine  nvevfia,  which  is  destined  and 
adapted  to  receive  its  influences  and  spread  them  through  the  whole  of 
human  nature.  If  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  14,  by  nvevfia  is  to  be  understood  the 
power  indwelling  in  human  nature,  not  merely  something  communicated 
to  man,  the  "  spiritual  gift"  (xdpiopa  nvevfiaTiicbv)  as  something  personi- 
fied,* we  can  make  good  use  of  this  application  of  the  word.  In  the 
moments  of  the  highest  elevation  or  inspiration,  when  the  discursive 
power  is  in  abeyance,  the  "  spirit"  is  supreme.  This,  as  the  receptive 
organ  for  the  inspiration  of  the  divine  "  spirit,"  -nvevfia,  is  then  alone 
developed.  Thus,  under  the  term  -nvEvfia  we  shall  comprise  what  is  in- 
nermost, and  deepest,  and  highest  in  man,  the  side  of  the  spirit  turned 
towards  the  eternal  and  divine — the  power  to  become  conscious  of  God 
and  of  divine  things — the  capacity  for  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  the 
higher  self-consciousness  grounded  in  that ;  while  by  the  term  ipvxi  we 

forbids,  cannot  excuse  himself,— tbou  canst  allege  no  excuse  for  thyself;  thou,  whoever 
thou  mayest  be,  thou  who  testifiest  of  thy  knowledge  of  God,  when  thou  judgest  another, 
thou  condemne8t  thyself." 

*  The  first  interpretation  here  suggested,  is  favored  by  the  antithesis  between  nvev/ia 
and  vovc  /j.ov,  and  the  word  vovc,  which  elsewhere  corresponds  to  nvei<f/a,  as  the  designa- 
tion of  the  highest  power  in  human  nature,  need  not  perplex  us;  for  there  would  natur- 
urally  have  been  made  prominent  here  just  this  idea  of  vovg  as  the  voovv,  the  thinking 
faculty  in  man,  since  the  immediateness  of  inspiration  is  distinguished  from  the  mediate 
exercise  of  thought.  A  Greek  would  certainly  have  chosen  another  word  than  vovg,  and 
would  have  distinguished  between  voovv  and  6tavoovv. 


THE   TWOFOLD   PRINCIPLE    IN    MAN.  395 

understand  all  that  belongs  to  the  knowledge  of  the  world  and  the  lower 
self-consciousness.  In  man's  original  state  the  "  spirit,"  nvev^a,  as  the 
organ  of  the  Divine  Spirit  was  in  communion  with  it  as  its  natural,  undis- 
turbed life,  and  the  "  life,"  V,UA?7>  was  l^e  natural  organ  of  the  human 
TTvevna ;  the  divine  and  the  human  were  in  harmonic  unison.  '  But  after 
this  connexion  had  been  broken  by  sin,  the  Trvev^a,  by  the  predominance 
of  the  *pvx%  separated  from  connexion  with  its  great  fountain-head  and 
altogether  kept  under,  was  prevented  from  acting  and  manifesting  itself. 
Thus  was  formed  the  "  natural  man,''  i/w^t/coc,  who  with  all  his  cultiva- 
tion wants  the  sense  for  the  divine,  whose  intellectual  egoism,  not  less 
than  the  sensual  rudeness  of  the  man  who  in  a  narrower  sense  is  called 
"  carnal,"  oapKutbg,  stands  in  contradiction  to  the  divine  things  which 
the  Spirit  of  God  reveals — both  are  only  two  distinct  forms  of  worldly- 
mindedness.  The  "  natural  man"  furthermore  remains  fettered  with  his 
consciousness  to  the  world,  confined  within  its  limits ;  he  has  no  sense 
for  the  supersensuous  and  denies  its  reality ;  it  finds  no  point  of  con- 
nexion in  his  merely  psychical  being,  in  which  the  pneumatic  is  altogether 
suppressed. 

In  special  relation  to  what  Paul  calls  the  -nvtv\iat  stands  that  which 
he  designates  "the  inner  man."  The, contrariety  between  the  inner  and 
outer  man  by  no  means  corresponds  to  the  contrariety  between  the  body 
and  soul,  spirit  or  reason  and  sensuousness.  We  have  seen,  that  accord- 
ing to  Paul's  doctrine,  evil  may  have  its  seat  in  the  intellect.  There  is 
such  a  thing  as  a  reason  estranged  from  God  and  ruled  by  egoism.  But 
Paul  never  speaks  of  an  evil  residing  in  the  inner  man :  the  idea  of  the 
inner  man  only  appears  in  reference  to  the  Divine. 

When  the  higher  God-related  nature  of  man  begins  to  make  itself 
free  from  the  power  of  the  ungodly  principle, — to  attain  a  consciousness 
of  its  own  peculiar  being,  and  to  be  sensible  of  its  bondage — then  the 
inner  man,  hitherto  oppressed  by  the  burden  of  worldliness,  rises  up. 
This  inner  man  recognises  in  the  divine  law  what  corresponds  to  his  own 
nature,  and  rejoices  in  it.  But  he  is  not  yet  strong  enough  to  overcome 
the  power  of  sin  predominant  in  the  outer  man,  and  thus  to  bring  the 
law  into  actual  practice ;  Rom.  vii.  22.  He  attains  to  new  power  through 
the  divine  life  communicated  by  Christ,  when  Christ  dwells  in  the  heart ; 
Eph.  iii.  1G,  17.  The  sufferings  by  which  the  outer  man  perishes,  only  serve 
to  free  and  to  renew  the  inner  man  more  and  more;  2  Cor.  iv.  16.  This 
opposition  between  the  inner  and  the  outward  man  is  to  be  understood  as 
involving  the  thought  that  everything  which  belongs  to  the  world  is  ex- 
ternal to  the  inner  man.  Evil  has  its  ground  in  this,  that  man  turns  away 
from  what  is  innermost  to  him,  from  his  relation  to  God,  and  surrenders 
himself  to  the  world  over  which  he  should  be  exalted  by  virtue  of  the 
life  in  God,  and  in  consequence,  man  becomes  continually  absorbed  into 
the  world,  secularized  and  alienated  from  God.  Earthly  envelopments 
oppress  the  true  inward  essence  of  the  spirit,  and  keep  the  inner  man  in 
a  state  of  insensibility.     In  proportion  as  man  retires  into  the  depths  oi 


rfyo  THE   STATE    OF   BONDAGE. 

his  inward  being,  from  the  dissipations  of  worldly  things,  the  greater  is 
his  inward  strength  ;  the  more  he  turns  within,  the  more  the  power  of 
the  inner  man  whose  life  is  in  God  gains  the  ascendency. 

Tims  Paul  represents  two  general  principles  in  the  natural  man  as 
striving  against  each  other ;  the  principle  peculiar  to  the  offspring  of 
God,  that  which  is  allied  to  God  in  the  implanted  consciousness  of  God, 
and  in  the  moral  self-consciousness  grounded  therein,  the  reaction  of  the 
original  religious  and  moral  nature  of  man ;  and  the  principle  of  sin  ;  or, 
in  other  words,  spirit  and  flesh,  the  inner  and  the  outer  man.  And  as 
the  former,  the  original  nature  of  man,  is  checked  in  its  development  and 
efficiency  by  the  latter,  and  detained  a  prisoner  as  by  a  hostile  force,  he 
describes  the  state  of  the  natural  man  in  general  as  one  of  bondage* 
Still  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  the  different  states  of  this  bond- 
age, aco^ding  as  it  is  conscious  or  unconscious;  according  as  the  sup- 
pressed higher  nature  has  not  yet  at  all  become  conscious  of  its  own  ex- 
istence, and  of  the  restraint  imposed  upon  it,  or  according  as  the  sense 
of  bondage,  in  which  man's  higher  self,  the  inner  man,  is  held,  has  been 
awakened  in  the  developed  higher  self-consciousness,  and  so  a  longing 
after  freedom  has  been  created.  The  latter  is  the  state  to  which  the 
apostle  has  affixed  the  name  of  bondage  in  the  more  restricted  sense  of 
the  word,  the  bondage  under  the  law,  inasmuch  as  with  the  consciousness 
of  the  suppressed  higher  nature  there  exists  at  the  same  time  a  conscious- 
ness of  the  law  revealing  itself  in  it,  that  is,  as  far  as  the  first  conscious- 
ness is  called  into  being  by  the  latter.  Hence  these  two  states  of 
unconscious  or  conscious  bondage  are  distinguished,  as  living  without  the 
law,  or  living  under  the  law.  These  two  states  the  apostle  describes  in 
the  7th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  he  there  depicts,  in  his 
own  person,  and  from  his  own  experience,  two  universally  existing  states. 

The  first  state  he  represents  as  one  in  which  a  man  lives  in  delusive 
satisfaction,  unconscious  both  of  the  requirements  of  the  holy  law  and  of 
the  power  of  the  counteracting  principle  of  sinfulness.  He  awakes  from 
this  state  of  security,  when  the  consciousness  of  the  law  and  its  require- 
ments is  excited.  The  moral  ideal,  which  is  presented  by  the  law  to  the 
self-consciousness  of  man,  exerts  an  attractive  influence  on  his  higher  na- 
ture. He  feels  that  he  can  find  satisfaction  and  happiness  only  in  the 
agreement  of  his  life  with  this  law.  But  then  he  sees  that  he  has  been 
wofully  deceived,  for  the  law  when  it  brings  forth  into  consciousness  the 
sinful  desires  that  had  hitherto  been  slumbering  in  his  breast,  irritates 
them  to  greater  activity  by  the  opposition  of  its  commands.  The  man 
who  is  enduring  this  conflict,  is  represented  by  Paul  as  saying,  "The 
commandment  that  should  have  tended  to  life  brought  only  death  ;  for 
sin  which  now  took  occasion  to  break  forth,  deceived  me  by  the  com- 
mandment and  by  it  slew  me." — Rom.  vii.  10,  11.  The  deception  which 
Was  practised  by  the  power  of  the  lutherto  slumbering  but  now  rampant 

*  The  "bondage  of  sin,"  dovteia  rye  ufiapTiag. 


THE    STATE    OF    BONDAGE.  397 

sinful  desires,  consisted  in  this,  that  when  the  law  in  its  glory,  the  moral 
archetype,  first  revealed  itself  to  the  related  higher  nature  of  man,  he 
was  filled  with  earnest  desire  to  seize  the  revealed  ideal ;  but  this  desire 
only  made  him  more  painfully  sensible  of  the  chasm  which  separated  him 
from  the  object  after  which  he  aspired.  Thus,  what  appeared  at  first  a 
blissful  ideal,  becomes,  on  the  contrary,  death-producing,  through  the 
guilt  of  sin.  The  higher  nature  of  man  aspiring  after  a  freer  self-con- 
sciousness, is  sensible  of  the  harmony  between  itself  and  the  divine  law 
in  which  it  delights  ;  but  there  is  another  power,  the  power  of  the  sinful 
principle  striving  against  the  higher  nature,  which,  when  a  man  is  dis- 
posed to  follow  the  inward  divine  leading,  drags  him  away,  so  that  he 
cannot  accomplish  the  good  by  which  alone  his  heavenly  nature  is  at- 
tracted. We  cannot  regard  this  disunion  as  one  in  which  man,  in  conflict 
with  his  better  knowledge  and  his  delight  in  goodness,  is  carried  away 
by  his  own  passions  and  lusts  to  surrender  himself  to  vice.  If  it  were 
so,  Paul,  who  was  blameless  in  legal  righteousness,  and  had  been  brought 
up  in  strict  legal  discipline,  could  not  have  spoken  as  he  did,  from  his 
own  experience.  But  for  man  from  this  point  of  view,  it  is  not  enough 
for  him  to  be  free  from  flagrant  vices.  Higher  requirements  of  purity 
in  heart  and  life  are  brought  home  to  his  consciousness,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  these  he  forms  holy  resolutions  which  he  is  unable  to  fulfil. 
How  often,  for  example,  might  Paul  have  been  overcome  by  the  force  of 
his  choleric  temperament. 

In  the  consciousness  of  this  wretched  disunion  he  exclaims,  "  Who 
shall  deliver  me  from  this  power  of  sin  ?"*  After  thus  vividly  calling  to 
mind  the  state  of  disunion  and  unhappiness  from  which  Christianity  has 
set  him  free,  he  is  carried  away  by  emotions  of  thankfulness  for  redemp- 
tion from  that  internal  wretchedness  ;  and  dropping  the  character  he  had 
for  the  moment  assumed,  he  interrupts  himself  (Rom  vii.  25)  by  an  ex- 
clamation occasioned  by  the  consciousness  of  his  present  state,  and  then, 
in  conclusion,  briefly  adverts  to  the  state  of  disunion  before  described. 
"I  myself  therefore,  this  one  man,  with  the  spirit  serve  the  law  of  God, 
but  with  the  flesh,  the  law  of  sin."  If  we  understand  the  phrase,  "serve 
the  law  of  God"  in  the  full  strictness  of  the  idea,  more  seems  to  be  ex- 
pressed by  it  than  the  moral  state  of  the  natural  man  allows  :  for  taking 
the  woi-ds  in  their  highest  sense,  they  describe  such  a  reference  of  the 
whole  life  to  God,  such  an  animating  of  it  by  a  practical  sense  of  God, 
as  must  proceed  from  regeneration,  and  supposes  its  existence.  But  we 
must  first  of  all  accurately  fix  the  meaning  of  "  serve"  and  of  "  law"  in 
this  passage.  Both  terms  are  used  by  Paul  in  a  two-fold  manner.  The 
fundamental  idea  of  "  serving,"  dovXeveiv,  is  that  of  a  life  corresponding 
to  God's  law  and  to  the  consciousness  of  dependence  on  him.  But  this 
consciousness  of  dependence  may  be  of  two  sorts  ;  either,  one  in  which 
the  man  consents  with  freedom,  or  one  with  which  his  direction  of  will 

*  Paul  terms  it  the  "  body  of  death,"  inasmuch  as  the  power  of  evil  desires  manifests 
vtself  particularly  in  the  body  as  the  slave  of  sinful  habits. 


398  THE   APOSTLE  S   EXPERIENCE. 

stands  in  contradiction.  And  so  likewise  in  the  application  of  the  term 
law,  of  which  the  general  idea  is  a  rule  of  life  and  action.  This  rule  may- 
be either,  according  to  the  first  meaning  of  the  word  "  serve,"  a  rule 
proceeding  from  within,  founded  on  the  internal  development  of  the  life, 
with  which  the  predominant  tendency  of  the  will  is  in  perfect  harmony ; 
or  it  may  be  a  rule  presenting  itself  to  the  spirit  of  man  from  without, 
an  outwardly  commanding,  constraining  law,  which  contradicts  the 
predominant  internal  tendency  of  the  will,  and  whose  supremacy  is 
therefore  only  acknowledged  by  compulsion  according  to  the  second 
meaning  of  the  word.  Now  the  apostle  here  employs  the  word  "  serve" 
in  'the  second  sense,  and  describes  a  state  in  which  the  consciousness  of 
God  makes  its  power  felt  in  opposition  to  the  sinful  tendency  of  the  will, 
that  controls  the  life;  for  if  the  other  sense  of  the  term  were  intended, 
that  unhappy  disunion  would  immediately  cease.  If  the  consciousness 
of  God  had  become  an  internal  law  of  the  life  with  which  the  determi- 
nations of  the  will  were  in  harmony,  the  "  flesh"  would  no  longer  exercise 
its  power  as  a  determining  principle  of  the  life. 

No  doubt  the  apostle  took  the  materials  of  this  description  from  his 
own  experience,  which  put  it  in  his  power  to  delineate  the  condition  in 
such  lively  colors.  Though  educated  by  pious  parents  in  Judaism,  still 
there  was  for  him,  during  childhood,  a  period  of  ingenuous  simplicity,  in 
which  the  consciousness  of  the  law  and  of  the  contrariety  between  its 
requirements  and  the  indwelling  principle  of  sin,  could  not  be  developed 
with  the  same  clearness  as  in  maturer  life.  And  from  this  first  epoch  of 
childhood,  he  was  led  on  by  his  Pharisaic  education  to  the  summit  of 
servitude  to  the  law.  But  he  represents  in  his  own  person  the  two 
universal  stages  of  human  development,  by  which  the  race,  as  well 
as  individuals,  should  thenceforward  be  trained  for  the  appropriation 
of  redemption.  He  here  describes  in  an  individual  example  how  Judaism, 
as  the  legal  religion,  in  respect  to  that  which  constitutes  its  peculiar 
essence  and  by  which  it  forms  the  contrast  with  Christianity,  should  serve 
in  the  progress  of  human  development.  Very  different  was  that  part  of 
Judaism  which  constituted  the  point  of  union  between  it  and  the  gospel, 
and  the  aspect  under  which  it  might  be  viewed  as  the  gospel  veiled  the 
prophetic  element,  by  which  it  was  connected  with  the  promises  made 
before  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  formed  a  continuation  of  them  till  the 
Redeemer  himself  appeared.  As  in  order  to  prepare  for  the  reception 
of  the  Redeemer,  it  was  needful,  on  the  one  hand,  to  excite  a  conscious- 
ness of  internal  disunion  and  bondage,  and  the  consequent  sense  of  a 
need  of  redemption ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  to  point  out  the  relief 
about  to  be  afforded  for  this  misery,  and  the  personage  by  whom  it 
would  be  effected ;  so  Judaism  was  in  both  these  respects  a  divine  reve- 
lation and  a  religious  economy  preparatory  to  Christianity. 

In  confutation  of  the  Jews  and  Judaizers,  who  would  not  recognise 
in  Judaism  a  merely  preparative  dispensation,  but  maintained  its  per- 
petual validity,  the  apostle  proved  that  all  the  leadings  of  the  divine  gov- 


JUDAISM.  399 

srnment,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  related  to  the  fulfilment  of  a 
purpose  embracing  the  salvation  of  the  whole  fallen  race  of  man,  a  pur- 
pose to  communicate  among  all  men,  by  the  Messiah,  redeeming  grace, 
for  the  obtaining  of  which  no  other  means  would  be  requisite  than  sur- 
rendering themselves  to  it  and  receiving  it  by  means  of  faith.  There 
was,  therefore,  only  one  fundamental  relation  between  God  and  man ;  on 
the  part  of  God,  a  revelation  of  hi3  grace  in  its  promise  and  fulfilment; 
on  the  part  of  man,  an  appropriation  of  this  grace  by  faith.  The  legal 
Judaism  could  make  no  alteration  in  this  unchangeable  or  fundamental 
relation  between  God  and  man,  which  had  been  already  established  by 
the  promises  given  to  Abraham  ;  it  could  not  add  a  new  condition,  such 
as  the  observance  of  the  law,  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises,  Gal.  iii. 
15,  in  which  case  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  would  be  attached  to  some- 
thing that  could  not  be  performed,  since  no  man  is  capable  of  observing 
the  law.  There  are  two  relations  which  exclude  one  another,  the  one 
having  respect  to  what  comes  on  condition  of  fulfilling  the  law,  and  the 
other  to  what  is  bestowed  according  to  a  divine  promise  :  the  former  re- 
fers to  something  to  be  given  as  a  reward  of  merit,  the  latter  to  a  free 
exhibition  of  grace,  which  stipulates  no  other  condition  than  a  recep- 
tion of  what  is  bestowed  through  grace.     Gal.  iii.  18. 

The  law,  therefore,  formed  only  a  preparatory,  inteiwening  economy 
for  the  Jewish  nation,*  partly  designed  to  check  in  some  measure  the 
grosser  indulgences  of  sin,f  but  more  especially  to  call  forth  and  main- 

*  To  this  Rom.  v.  20  refers,  "the  law  entered,"  vo\ioq  wapstorjWev. 

f  Twv  irapapuaeuv  x^Plvi  "on  account  of  transgressions."  Gal.  iii.  19.  The  interpreta- 
tion of  this  passage  which  I  have  followed  requires  to  be  supported  against  the  objections 
of  Usteri  iu  his  Entwickelung  des  paidinischen  Lehrbegriffs  (Development  of  the  Pauline 
Doctrines),  4th  ed.  pp.  66,  67,  and  in  his  excellent  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
;ians,  p.  114.  The  reasons  alleged  by  him  are,  that  the  idea  of  transgression  presupposes 
the  idea  of  law — that  according  to  the  Pauline  association  of  ideas,  sin  was  called  forth  by 
the  law,  the  law  could  present  no  check  to  sin,  but,  on  the  contrary,  must  tend  to  hasten 
the  outbreak  of  sinfulness.  Paul  would  therefore  contradict  himself,  if  he  said  that  the  law 
was  added  in  order  to  check  sin.  But  although  Paul  by  describing  "sin,"  dftapTia,  aa 
"transgression,"  napu(laoi£,  conceived  of  it  as  a  transgression  of  the  law,  intending  spe- 
cially the  positive  law,  yet  sin,  without  reference  to  the  Mosaic  law,  might  be  so  denom- 
inated in  reference  to  the  law  of  God  revealed  iu  the  conscience,  and  which  is  thereby 
transgressed ;  and  Paul  could  by  anticipation  have  called  sins  irapapdaeic,  in  relation  to 
the  Mosaic  law  which  should  cause  single  sins  to  appear  in  the  form  of  "  transgressions." 
According  to  Paul,  the  positive  law,  as  well  aa  the  indwelling  law  of  the  heart,  supposes  an 
existing  sinfulness  in  man.  When  the  internal  law  as  a  revelation  of  God  is  outwardly 
presented  in  a  definite  literal  form,  it  only  serves  to  bring  this  opposition  into  clearer  con- 
sciousness, and  to  counterwork  the  manifold  influences  by  which  this  consciousness  is  ob- 
scured and  depressed.  Indeed,  the  law,  according  to  Paul,  cannot  conquer  sin  internally, 
but  only  serves  to  manifest  it  in  its  full  extent.  It  can  produce  no  true  holiness  in  the 
disposition ;  nevertheless,  we  can  readily  conceive  how  a  positive  law,  bringing  into  clearer 
consciousness  the  opposition  of  good  and  evil,  opposing  to  sinful  inclinations  the  distinctly 
expressed  divine  will, by  threatening  and  alarming  would  check  the  outward  indnlgenco 
of  sinful  desires,  act  as  a  check  on  grosser  immorality,  and  promote  outward  moral  de- 
oorura.     This,  it  is  true,  can  be  attained  only  in  a  very  imperfect  degree  by  the  law,  since 


400  THE   USE   OF  THE  LAW. 

tain  a  vivid  consciousness  of  sin.*  While  thus  the  law  put  an  outward 
check  on  the  sinful  rudeness  which  was  ever  anew  rising  against  it ; 
while  by  this  means  the  consciousness  of  the  power  of  the  sinful  princi- 
ple became  more  vivid,  and  hence  the  sense  of  need  both  of  the  .forgive- 
ness of  sin  and  of  freedom  from  its  bondage  was  awakened,  the  law  be- 
came a  "  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,"  naidayuybg  elg  Xpiorbv. 
The  bondage  of  Judaism  consisted  in  the  binding  of  religion  to  a  multi- 
tude of  sensible  forms,  which  could  only  typify  the  divine  that  was  not 
yet  distinctly  apprehended,  the  dependence  of  the  development  of  the  in- 

it  has  not  the  power  of  operating  on  the  internal  ground,  from  which  all  the  outward 
manifestations  of  sin  proceed.  On  the  one  hand,  the  law  checks  the  grosser  outbreaks  of 
sin  ;  on  the  other,  it  occasions  that  the  sinfulness  called  forth  by  opposition  from  its  con- 
cealment, is  displayed  in  the  form  of  particular  transgression  of  the  law,  and  a  man  thereby 
becomes  conscious  of  the  hidden  and  deeply-seated  root  of  all  evil.  Both  may  be  repre- 
sented as  the  work  of  the  law ;  the  check  put  on  the  outbreaks  of  sinfulness,  and  the 
greater  prominence  given  to  it  in  the  form  of  particular  transgressions  of  special  com- 
mands. Both  may  be  considered  as  the  objects  of  that  divine  wisdom  which  gave  the  law 
to  man,  if  we  only  keep  the  various  refeiences  distinct  from  each  other.  On  the  one  hand, 
to  prevent  the  total  brutalization  of  human  nature,  and,  on  the  other,  not  to  permit  the 
self-deception  that  any  other  means  of  training  can  avail,  short  of  that  method  which  will 
effect  a  radical  cure.  As  to  the  first  point,  Paul  marks  it  in  Gal.  iii.  23,  where  he  says 
that  men  were  kept  as  prisoners  by  the  law,  which  agrees  with  what  Christ  says  when, 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  he  opposes  the  holiness  of  disposition  attained  through  the 
gospel,  to  the  theocratic  political  law,  which  would  only  restrain  the  outbreaking  force  of 
evil  in  its  external  actions,  and  with  what  he  says  in  Matt.  xix.  8,  on  the  relation  of  the 
law  to  the  "  hardness  of  heart,"  onlT]poK.ap6ia,  of  men.  With  respect  to  the  other  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage — "  the  law  is  added  in  order  to  make  sin  knowable  as  such,  to  bring 
men  to  a  clear  consciousness  of  it" — the  words  do  not  so  plainly  convey  this  meaning. 
According  to  that  interpretation  they  would  mean :  the  law  was  given  to  favor  transgres- 
sions, in  order  that  transgressions  might  take  place:  the  thought  would,  after  all,  be  very 
obscurely  expressed,  and  if  this  were  said  without  further  limitation,  it  would  convey  such 
a  mean  estimate  of  the  law  as  Paul,  from  his  stand-point,  certainly  could  not  allow.  And 
as  Riickert  justly  remarks,  the  use  of  the  article  with  the  word  napafiaoeuv  (on  accouut 
of  certain  existing  sins,  in  order  to  put  a  check  to  them),  better  suits  the  method  of  inter- 
pretation we  have  followed  and  the  connexion  of  the  passage,  since  it  is  the  design  of  Paul 
to  acknowledge  the  importance  of  the  law  in  its  own  though  subordinate  value.  See 
in  Rheinwald's  Repertorium,  No.  vi.,  <fec,  Schneckenburger's  review  of  Usteri's  work  on  the 
Pauline  doctrines,  which  agrees,  in  this  and  several  other  points,  with  our  own  views. 

*  Rom.  v.  20,  Iva  nleovdor)  tj  u/uaQria,  "  so  that  sin  might  abound,"  that  is,  that  the 
power  of  indwelling  sin,  the  intensive  force  of  the  sinful  principle  as  such,  might  be  mani- 
fested so  much  more  strongly.  In  reference  to  the  development  of  the  Pauline  sentiment, 
Pritsche,  in  his  excellent  Commentary,  to  which  I  am  much  indebted,  justly  remarks  (p. 
350),  that  this  cannot  be  the  literal  sense  of  the  passage,  for  here  duapTta  is  spoken  of  as  a 
single  violation  of  God's  law.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is :  in  order  that  transgressions 
may  increase.  But  this  must  serve  to  make  them  more  conscious  of  the  intensive  power 
of  the  evil  principle,  by  its  coming  forth  more  distinctly  in  outward  manifestation,  as  we 
detect  in  the  symptoms  of  a  positive  disease  the  morbific  matter  which  has  been  for  a  long 
time  lurking  in  the  system.  Thus,  Rom.  vii.  13,  in  order  that  sin  might  show  itself  abun- 
dantly as  sin,  sin  in  its  destructive  power ;  so  that  the  law  in  bringing  salvation  must,  on 
account  of  sin,  itself  bring  destruction. 


THE    USE   OP   THE   LAW.  401 

ternal  religious  life  on  the  outward  and  the  sensuous,*  which  might  also 
contribute,  like  the  ethical  part  of  the  law,  partly  to  restrain  sensual  gross- 
ness,  partly  to  awaken  tho  internal  religious  sentiment,  partly  to,  arouse 
it  to  a  consciousness  of  the  bondage  that  oppressed  it,  and  to  a  feeling 
of  need  of  freedom. f  In  this  aspect,  the  unity  of  the  moral  and  the 
ritual  in  the  Mosaic  law  is  apparent ;  both  belonged  to  the  one  object  of 
religious  moral  development,  and  subserved.the  same  end. 

The  race  before  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  may  be  regarded  as 
consisting  of  two  general  divisions,  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  The  dis- 
tinction between  them  may  be  seen  in  the  contrast  they  furnish  between 
natural  development  and  Revelation.  Among  the  Jews,  God  had  from 
the  beginning  communicated  and  propagated  the  knowledge  of  himself 
by  a  connected  series  of  revelations ;  by  a  positive  law  had  manifested 
the  need  of  redemption  and  given  promises  with  ever-increasing  clear- 
ness of  Him  who  was  to  satisfy  this  need ;  Rom.  ix.  4.  The  Theocracy 
was  here  presented  in  the  form  of  a  particular  nationality,  until,  at  last,  the 
Redeemer  arose  from  the  midst  of  this  nation,  and  connected  himself  in 
his  own  person  with  the  promises  made  to  them.  The  Gentiles,  on  the 
contrary,  were  left  to  themselves,  and  shut  out  from  the  organized  his- 
torical preparation  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Still  the  apostle  recognises, 
as  we  have  here  remarked,  an  original  revelation  of  God  among  the 
heathen,  without  which  even  idolatry  could  not  have  ai*isen.  We  must 
here  distinguish  between  the  two  ideas  of  Revelation  above  unfolded — 
the  general  and  the  special.J  The  one,  is  the  general  revelation  of  God 
in  the  creation,  and,  through  creation,  in  the  reason  and  conscience,  in 
which  three  factors  are  combined — the  self-revelation  of  God  in  creation 
acting  from  without — the  adaptation  to  the  knowledge  of  God  in  the 
spirit  of  man,  (reason  and  conscience) — and  the  undeniable  connexion  of 
created  spirits  with  the  original  Spirit  whose  offspring  they  are,  in  whom 
they  live  and  move  and  have  their  being,  the  fountain  from  which  pro- 
ceed all  the  movements  of  the  higher  life  ;  the  other,  is  Revelation  in  a 
more  restricted  sense,  which  does  not  proceed  from  an  operation  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  through  the  medium  of  creation,  like  the  former,  but  a  Re- 
velation by  means  of  which  man  apprehends  in  a  divine  light  the  truths 
relating  to  salvation,  the  knowledge  of  which  he  could  not  attain  by  his 
own  reason. 

But  to  understand  that  general  revelation  of  God,  a  mind  susceptible 
of  the  Divine  was  required.  The  original  consciousness  of  truth,  in  refer- 
ence to  religion  and  morals,  was  kept  under  by  the  predominance  of  the 
principle  of  sin.§     As  in  the  life  of  the  individual,  so  in  the  life  of  the  race, 

*  The  deiovAuoftaL  vnb  t&  oroixeTa  —  ru  aapKtKu.     See  above,  p.  297,  note. 

•J-  Thus  Peter  calls  the  law  in  its  whole  exteDt,  contrasted  with  the  grace  of  redemp- 
tion, "  a  yoke  which  neither  they  nor  their  fathers  were  able  to  bear."     Acts  xv.  10. 

$  See  page  99. 

§  Rom.  i.  18,  rijv  uhr/deiav  iv  ddwia  Karixovre^.  "They  repressed  the  truth  that 
manifested  itself  to  them,  the  consciousness  of  truth  that  was  springing  up  in  their  minda 


402  THE    JEWS    AND    GENTILES. 

a  connexion  exists  between  the  earlier  and  the  later  critical  periods,  by 
virtue  of  which  the  latter  is  conditioned  by  the  former.  Thus,  by  the  con- 
tinual working  of  sin  and  deification  of  nature  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, that  original  consciousness  of  God  becomes  increasingly  obscured. 
This  it  is,  this  criminal  want  of  freedom,  which  Paul  means  by  being  given 
up  to  sin  and  delusion.  The  Mosaic  law  corresponds,  indeed,  to  the  law 
written  on  the  heart,  by  virtue  of  which  death  may  be  acknowledged  to  be 
the  desert  of  sin  ;  Rom.  i.  32.  But  since  this  consciousness  is  so  much 
obscured  by  the  dominion  of  sin,  Paul  makes  a  marked  distinction  between 
the  position  of  the  theocratic  people  to  whom  the  law  was  revealed  as  given 
by  God,  among  whom  the  commanding,  judging,  and  condemning  voice 
of  God  in  the  law  denounced  all  evil,  and  their  position  before  and  apart 
from  that  law.  Thus  Paul,  in  Rom.  v.  13,  14,  affirms  that  the  objective 
connexion  between  sin  and  death  was  the  same  from  the  beginning,  but 
that  this  objective  connexion  must,  through  the  positive  law,  be  made  sub- 
jective by  entering  clearly  into  the  human  consciousness.  "What  on  the 
stand-point  of  nature  left  to  itself,  is  only  something  lying  at  the  basis  of 
the  consciousness,  is  thus  brought  out  into  vivid  consciousness.  The  prin- 
ciple expressed  in  its  absoluteness  in  Rom.  v.  13,  "  Sin  is  not  imputed 
when  there  is  no  law"  becomes  relative  in  its  application.  The  divine 
imputation  of  sin  is  regulated  by  the  given  degree  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  law.  Thus  Paul,  in  Acts  xvii.  30,  which  words  we  must  regard 
as  perfectly  corresponding  to  the  apostle's  general  style  of  thought, 
could  speak  of  the  times  of  ignorance  among  the  heathen  as  an  object  of 
the  divine  forbearance,  which  is  to  be  taken  in  connexion  with  what  he 
says  in  Rom.  iii.  25*  respecting  the  non-punishment  of  sins  that  had  been 
committed  at  a  time  when  the  Divine  long-suffering  prevailed.  This  is  of 
importance  in  its  application  to  the  various  circumstances  of  nations  who 
have  not  yet  reached  a  state  of  moral  development.  But  although  Paul 
distinguishes  from  each  other  the  positive  Divine  law,  and  the  inner  moral 
law  of  nature,  yet  he  always  bears  in  mind  the  connexion  between  the 
two,  and  the  Mosaic  law  appears  to  him  as  the  representative  of  the 
eternal  theocratic  law,  the  law  which  God  has  stamped  on  the  inner  man, 
as  appears  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Hence 
we  must  maintain,  against  those  who  imagine  that  where  Paul  speaks  of 
the  law,  he  only  refers  to  the  Mosaic  law  in  a  narrower  sense,  that  where 
he  represents  it  as  condemning  man  and  revealing  to  him  his  guilt,  it  ap- 
pears to  him,  at  the  same  time,  as  the  representative  of  the  Divine  law, 
manifesting  itself,  although  less  clearly,  in  all  mankind,  and  applicable  to 
all.     When  also  Paul,  in  Gal.  iii.  13,  speaks  of  the  curse  of  the  law ;  and  in 

■ — through  siu."  In  these  words,  Paul  particularly  referred  to  the  Gentiles,  though  they 
might  also  be  applied  to  the  Jews.  It  was  not  needful  for  him  to  point  out  to  the  Jews, 
that  they  could  not  allege  as  an  excuse  for  their  conduct  the  want  of  a  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  his  law,  since  they  were  only  too  much  disposed  to  pride  themselves  on  the 
mere  knowledge  of  what  had  been  revealed  to  them. 
*  See  for  the  exact  exposition  of  this  passage  p.  415. 


THE   JEWS    AND    GENTILES.  403 

Col.  ii.  14,  describes  the  same  as  a  bond  (handwriting),  it  is  evident  from 
the  unmistakeable  contrast  in  the  first  passage  that  he  thinks  first  of  the 
Jews,  who  were  conscious  of  the  obligatoriness  of  the  law,  while  yet  this 
law,  in  his  apprehension  of  its  idea,  certainly  refers  to  the  whole  human 
race.  As  long  as  the  law  retained  its  validity,  it  denounced  a  curse  on  all 
who  did  not  observe  it ;  while  the  observance  of  it  was  the  only  means 
for  participating  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  for  attaining  everlasting  life. 
Hence,  the  curse  it  denounces  must  first  be  "removed,  in  order  that  the 
Abrahamic  blessing  referring  to  all  mankind,  might  be  fulfilled  to  the 
Gentiles.  Gal.  iii.  14.  Hence  also,  the  revelation  of  the  "  wrath  of 
God,"  dpyr)  Oeov,  among  the  heathen,  to  accomplish  which  is  the  work  of 
the  law,  Rom.  iv.  15,  must  precede,  and  they  must  be  convinced  that 
only  through  Christ  they  can  be  freed  from  this  wrath,  if  they  would  be 
made  partakers  of  redemption.  From  that  law  of  the  conscience  could 
also  proceed  the  sense  of  disunion  in  the  inner  man,  and  the  feeling  of  the 
need  of  redemption,  without  which  Christianity  can  find  no  point  of  con- 
nexion with,  and  entrance  into,  the  heart,  and  this  point  of  connexion  Paul 
everywhere  assumes  in  reference  to  the  heathen. 

Indeed,  he  makes  in  all  respects  a  universal  contrast  between  the  Jews 
incorporated  in  the  Theocracy,  and  the  heathen  who  were  living  without 
God  ;  though  he  unquestionably  does  not  put  all  who  were  living  in 
heathenism  on  the  same  level.  Certainly  he  could  not  say  of  every  in- 
dividual, what  he  says  of  the  corrupt  mass  in  general,  Eph.  iv.  10,  that 
they  had  given  themselves  up  to  the  indulgence  of  their  lusts  with  a  sup- 
pression of  all  moral  feeling  ;  he  no  doubt  recognised  in  the  civil  and 
domestic  virtues  of  the  heathen  some  scattered  rays  of  the  repressed 
knowledge  of  God.  In  this  respect  he  says,  Rom.  ii.  14-20,  comparing 
the  heathen  with  the  Jews,  that  where  the  former  fulfilled  in  some 
cases  the  commands  of  the  law,  following  the  law  written  on  their 
hearts,  they  thereby  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  on  the  Jews,  to 
whom  the  positive  law  had  been  given,  of  which  they  boasted,  but 
neglected  to  obey  it.  Not  that  we  can  suppose  him  to  mean,  that  in  any 
instance  there  was  anything  like  a  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  law.  To  sup- 
pose this,  would  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  what  Paul  affirms  respect- 
ing the  consciousness  of  guilt  universally  awakened  by  the  law,  that  it 
could  only  call  forth  a  sense  of  sin  and  of  deserved  punishment ;  we  can- 
not separate  a  single  act  from  the  whole  life,  if  with  Paul  we  refer 
everything  to  the  animating  disposition,  and  do  not  form  our  estimate 
according  to  the  outward  value  of  good  works.  Where  the  whole 
of  the  internal  life  was  not  animated  by  that  which  must  be  the  princi- 
ple of  all  true  goodness,  that  principle  could  not  perfectly  operate  even 
for  a  single  moment.  Still,  the  repressed  higher  nature  of  man,  the 
6eat  of  the  law  of  God,  gave  more  or  fewer  signs  of  its  existence. 

From  the  Jewish  and  from  the  Gentile  points  of  view  alike,  there 
was  only  one  mode  of  transition  to  a  state  of  salvation,  the  consciousness 
of  an  inward  disunion  between  the  divine  and  the  undivine  in  human 


404  THE   JEWS    AND    GENTILES. 

nature,  and  proceeding  from  that,  the  consciousness  of  the  need  of  re- 
demption. And  hence  there  are  two  hindrances  which  obstruct  the  at- 
tainment of  salvation  by  men  ;  either  the  gross  security  of  heathenism, 
where  the  higher  movements  of  life  are  entirely  suppressed  by  the  do- 
minion of  sinful  pleasure,  or  the  Jewish  merit  of  works  and  self-righteous- 
ness, where  men,  pacifying  their  consciences  by  the  show  of  devotion  and 
of  fulfilling  the  law,  deceive  themselves,  and  suppose  that,  by  the  mechan- 
ism of  outward  religious  exercises,  or  by  the  performance  of  certain 
actions  which  wear  the  appearance  of  good  works,  they  have  attained 
the  essence  of  the  holiness  required  by  the  divine  law.  In  reference  to 
the  latter,  Paul  says  of  the  Jews,  Rom.  x.  3,  that  since  they  knew  not 
the  essence  of  true  holiness  which  avails  before  God  and  can  be  imparted 
by  God  alone,  and  since  they  esteemed  their  own  works  to  be  genuine 
holiness — they  could  not  perceive  the  insufficiency  of  these,  and  hence 
they  could  not  appropriate  the  holiness  revealed  and  imparted  by  God.* 
As  the  manner  in  which  the  Jews,  insensible  of  their  need  of  divine  aid, 
endeavored  to  attain  holiness  by  the  observance  of  the  law,  was  their 
cause  of  not  attaining  it ;  so  on  the  other  hand  the  heathen — those, 
namely,  in  whom  self-conceit  of  another  kind  had  not  been  produced  by 
a  philosophical  training — since  no  such  spiritual  pride  counteracted  the 
feelincr  of  the  need  of  redemption  in  their  minds,  when  once  through 
particular  circumstances,  inward  experiences,  or  perhaps  through  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,f  the  voice  of  the  law  had  become  louder  and 
more  emphatic  within  them— were  easily  awakened  to  this  feeling  of 
helplessness,  and  thus  led  to  faith  in  the  Redeemer.^ 

In  another  respect  also,  Paul  compares  the  Jewish  and  the  heathen 
or  Grecian  points  of  view  with  one  another.  Among  the  Jews,  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  sensuous  element  in  their  religious  life,  a  tendency  of 
spirit,  which,  being  unsusceptible  of  the  internal  revelation  of  divine 
power,  sought  for  extraordinary  events  in  the  world  of  the  senses  as 
marks  of  the  divine,  a  tendency  which  he  distinguished  by  the  name  of 


*  The  phrase  "  God's  righteousness,"  SiKaioavvrj  tov  deov,  denotes,  in  this  passage,  a 
righteousness  which  avails  before  God,  and  originates  with  him,  in  opposition  to  one 
which  men  suppose  may  be  attained  by  their  own  power  and  works,  and  which,  though 
men  may  deceive  themselves  by  false  appearances,  cannot  stand  in  the  sight  of  a  holy, 
omniscient  God.  It  denotes,  accordingly,  the  manner  in  which  men  are  justified  through 
faith  in  Christ,  in  opposition  to  the  righteousness  of  the  law  or  of  works.  The  apostle 
uses  the  expression  "  have  submitted,"  vnsTuyTjaav,  since  he  considers  the  cause  of  their 
not  receiving  what  God  is  willing  to  bestow,  to  be  a  spirit  of  insubordination,  a  want  of 
humility  and  acquiescence  in  the  divine  arrangements. 

f  Which,  in  this  connexion,  must  present  itself  at  first  as  a  revelation  of  the  divine 
wrath  against  sin.     Rom.  i.  18. 

\  Hence,  naturally,  as  among  the  Jews  it  was  precisely  their  "  following  after  the  law 
of  righteousness,"  tiiuKelvvofiov  diKaioovvric,  which  was  the  cause  of  their  not  attaining 
true  righteousness,  so  among  the  heathen  their  "  not  following  after,"  prj  diunelv,  was  the 
cause  of  their  more  easily  attaining  it.     Rom.  ix.  30,  31. 


THE   JEWS    AND   GENTILES.  405 

sign-seeking,  was  opposed  to  faith  in  a  crucified  Redeemer,  wl.o  had  ap- 
peared in  "  the  form  of  a  servant."  This  revelation  of  the  power  of 
God,  where  the  sensuous  man  could  perceive  only  weakness  and  ignominy, 
must  have  been  a  stumbling-block  to  their  sign-seeking  minds,  which 
longed  for  a  Messiah  in  visible  earthly  glory,  as  the  founder  of  a  visible 
kingdom.  Among  the  educated  portion  of  the  Greeks,  on  the  contrary, 
that  one-sided  tendency,  which  sought  only  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  love 
of  knowledge  in  a  new  religion, — the  one-sided  predominance  of  specu- 
lation, the  intellectual  tendency — the  tendency  which  Paul  designated 
wisdom-seeking  and  philosophical  conceit — opposed  faith  in  that  preach- 
ing which  did  not  begin  with  the  solution  of  intellectual  difficulties,  but 
with  offering  satisfaction  to  hearts  that  longed  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin 
and  sanctification ;  hence  to  this  class  of  persons,  the  doctrine  which  did 
not  fulfil  the  expectations  of  their  wisdom-seeking  tendency,  and  de- 
manded the  renunciation  of  their  imaginary  wisdom,  must  have  ap- 
peared as  foolishness;  1  Cor.  i.  22,  23  *  Thus  Paul  said  in  reference  to 
the  Greeks,  1  Coi\  iii.  18,  He  who  thinks  himself  wise,  let  him  become 
a  fool,  that  he  may  be  able  to  find  true  wisdom  in  the  gospel ;  and  to 
the  Jews  his  mode  of  thought  required  that  the  same  thing,  with  a  change 
of  reference,  should  be  said :  He  who  esteems  himself  righteous  must 
first  become  in  his  own  eyes  a  sinner,  that  he  may  find  in  the  gospel  true 
righteousness.  Thus  must  nations  as  well  as  individuals  be  brought, 
through  their  own  experience,  to  a  sense  of  the  insufficiency  of  their  own 
wisdom  and  righteousness,  in  order,  by  feeling  their  need  of  help,  to  be 
in  a  suitable  state  for  receiving  that  redemption  which  was  prepared  for 
all  mankind;  Rom.  xi.  32.  The  whole  history  of  mankind  has  redemp- 
tion for  its  object,  and  there  are,  according  to  the  measure  of  the  diver- 
sified stages  of  human  development,  diversified  degrees  of  preparation ; 
this  is  the  central  point  to  which  the  whole  history  of  man  tends,  where 
all  the  threads  in  the  development  of  individual  generations  and  nations 
meet.  According  to  this  must  be  our  understanding  of  what  Paul  says, 
that  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  in  the  fulness  of  time,  Gal.  iv.  4,  as 
also  of  his  language  when  he  speaks,  Eph.  iii.  9,  of  the  mystery  of  re- 
demption as  hidden  from  eternity  in  God,  and  of  the  purpose  which  God 
had  before  the  world  was,  Eph.  i.  4,  and  which  was  to  be  fulfilled  in  the 
dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  time,  Eph.  i.  10.  In  the  divine  counsels 
he  could  not  suppose  there  was  a  before  and  after ;  but  by  this  mode  of 
expression  he  marks  the  internal  relation  of  the  divine  counsels  and  works 
to  each  other,  the  actual  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  among 
men  by  redemption,  the  final  aim  of  the  whole  earthly  creation  by  which 
its  destiny  will  first  be  completely  fulfilled.  This  globe  is  created  and 
destined  for  the  purpose  of  being  the  seat  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  of 
being  animated  by  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  body  of  which  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  the  soul.     The  end  of  all  created  existence  is  that  it  may  con 

*  See  also  pages  165,  19* 


406  '  NECESSITY    OF    REDEMPTION. 

tribute  to  the  glory  of  God,  or  to  reveal  God  in  his  glory.  But  in  order 
that  this  may  be  really  accomplished,  it  must  be  with  consciousness  and 
freedom,  and  these  are  qualities  which  can  be  found  only  in  an  assem- 
blage of  rational  beings.  It  is  such  an  assemblage,  therefore,  which  is 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  when  the  reason 
of  the  creature  has  been  brought  by  sin  into  a  state  of  contrariety  with 
the  end  of  its  existence,  redemption  is  a  necessary  condition  of  establish- 
ing the  kingdom  of  God  on  this  globe.  If  we  bear  in  mind,  what  we 
have  before  remarked  in  the  Pauline  connexion  of  ideas,  the  destination 
of  man  to  a  development  towards  an  imperishable  life,  the  conception 
also  here  naturally  follows  that,  although  there  would  have  been  no  need 
of  redemption  for  man  without  sin,  yet  something  was  reserved  for  him 
answering  to  the  glorification  of  human  nature  through  Christ. 

Paul  could  not  indeed  have  represented  human  nature  under  the 
aspect  of  its  need  of  redemption  in  this  manner,  if  he  had  not  been  led 
to  the  depths  of  self-knowledge  by  his  own  peculiar  development.  But 
so  far  was  he  from  mingling  a  foreign  element  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
that  from  his  own  experience  he  has  drawn  a  picture  which  every  man, 
who  like  Paul  has  striven  after  holiness,  must  verify  from  his  self-knowl- 
edge ;  it  is  a  picture,  too,  the  truth  of  which  is  presupposed  by  the  per- 
sonal instructions  of  Christ,  as  we  shall  find  by  reading  merely  the  first 
three  Gospels.  We  gather  this,  not  so  much  from  single  expressions  of 
Christ  respecting  the  constitution  of  human  nature,  as  from  the  repre- 
sentations he  gives  of  himself  and  of  the  work  he  had  to  accomplish  in 
relation  to  mankind.*  When  he  compares  Christianity  to  leaven  which 
is  designed  to  leaven  the  whole  mass  into  which  it  is  cast,  he  intimates 
the  necessity  of  transforming  human  nature  by  a  new  higher  element  of 
life  which  is  infused  into  it  by  Christianity.  Christ  calls  himself  the 
Physician  of  mankind  ;  he  says  that  he  came  only  for  the  sick,  for  sin- 
ners ;  Matt.  ix.  13  ;  Luke  v.  32.  It  is  impossible  that  by  such  language 
he  could  intend  to  divide  men  into  two  classes — the  sick,  those  who  were 
burdened  with  sin,  and  who  needed  his  aid  ;— and  the  righteous,  those  in 
health  and  who  needed  not  his  assistance  or  could  easily  dispense  with 
it ;  for  the  persons  in  reference  to  whose  objections  he  ottered  this  dec- 
laration, he  would  certainly  have  recognised  least  of  all  as  righteous  and 
healthy.  He  means  rather  to  say,  that  as  he  came  only  as  a  Physician 
for  the  sick,  as  a  Redeemer  for  sinners,  he  could  only  fulfil  his  mission  in 
the  case  of  those  who,  conscious  of  disease  and  sin,  were  willing  to  re- 
ceive him  as  a  Physician  and  Redeemer ;  that  he  was  come  in  vain  for 
those  who  would  not  acknowledge  trnir  need  of  healing  and  redemption. 
Christ,  when  he  sketches  the  traits  of  chat  moral  ideal  after  which  his  dis- 
ciples are  to  aspire,  never  expresses  his  reliance  on  the  moral  capabilities 
of  human  nature,  on  the  powers  of  reason  ;f  he  appeals  rather  to  the 

*  That  the  work  of  Christ  presupposes  a  condition  of  corruption  and  helplessness,  ia 
acknowledged  by  De  "Wette  in  his  Biblische  Dogmatik,  §  246. 
\  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  104. 


NECESSITY    OF    REDEMPTION.  407 

consciousness  of  spiritual  insufficiency,  the  sense  of  the  need  of  illumina- 
tion by  a  higher  divine  light,  of  sanctification  by  the  power  of  a  divine 
life,  a  need  which  he  promises  to  satisfy.  Hence  in  the  so-called  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  he  begins  with  pronouncing  blessed  such  a  tendency  of 
the  disposition,  since  it  will  surely  attain  what  it  seeks  ;  compare  Matt, 
xi.  28.  When  Christ,  Matt,  xix.,  Luke  xviii.,  at  first  enjoined  on  the  rich 
man  who  asked  him  what  he  must  do  to  inherit  eternal  life,  to  "  keep  the 
commandments,"  it  is  by  no  means  inconsistent  with  what  Paul  asserts 
of  the  insufficiency  of  the  works  of  the  law  for  the  attainment  of  salva- 
tion, but  is  identical  with  it,  only  under  another  form  and  aspect.  Christ 
wished  to  lead  this  individual,  who  according  to  the  Jewish  notions  was 
righteous,  to  a  consciousness  that  outward  conformity  to  the  law  by  no 
means  involved  the  disposition  that  was  required  for  participation  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  test  of  renouncing  self  and  the  world  which  he 
imposed  upon  him,  should  have  led  him  who  was  still  entangled  in  the 
love  of  earthly  things,  though  from  his  youth  he  had  lived  in  outward 
conformity  to  the  law,  to  feel  that  he  was  destitute  of  this  disposition. 
Nor  can  we,  from  the  expressions  in  which  children  are  represented  as 
models  of  the  state  of  mind  with  which  men  must  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God,  Matt.  xix.  14,  Luke  xviii.  16,  infer  the  doctrine  of  the  incorruption 
of  human  nature,*  partly  because  the  point  of  comparison  is  only  the  sim- 
plicity and  compliance  of  children,  the  consciousness  of  immaturity,!  the 
disclaiming  of  imaginary  preeminence,  the  renunciation  of  prejudices  ; 
and  partly  because  childhood  is  an  age  in  which  the  tendency  to  sin  is 
less  developed, J  but  the  existence  of  such  a  tendency  is  by  no  means 
denied.  Still  Christ  could  not  have  used  these  and  similar  expressions 
(as  in  Matt,  xviii.  10)  in  commendation  of  what  existed  in  children  as  an 
undeveloped  bud,  if  he  had  not  recognised  in  them  a  divine  impress,  a 
slumbering,  glimmering  knowledge  of  God,  which,  when  brought  from 
the  first  into  communion  with  Christ,  when  carried  back  to  its  original, 
should  thereby  be  preserved  from  the  reaction  of  the  sinful  principle. § 
And  the  recognition  of  a  something  in  human  nature  allied  to  the  divine, 
is  implied  in  what  Christ  says  of  the  eye  of  the  spirit,  of  that  which  is 
the  light  of  the  inner  man,  by  the  relation  of  which  to  the  source  of 
light,  the  whole  direction  and  complexion  of  the  life  is  determined ;  so 
that,  either  by  keeping  up  a  connexion  with  its  divine  source,  light  is 
spread  over  the  life  of  man,  or  if  the  eye  be  darkened  by  the  prevalence  of  a 

*  As  Baumgarten  Crusius  appears  to  do  in  his  Biblische  Dogmatik,  p.  362. 

f  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  331. 

\  On  this  account  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  20,  says  "in  malice  be  ye  children,"  ry  Kant? 

§  The  qualities  which  Christ  attributes  to  children,  are  entirely  opposed  to  a  harsh 
Augustinian  theology,  and  the  gloomy  view  of  life  founded  upon  it,  although  this  must  bo 
recognised  as  relatively  a  necessary  step  in  the  development  of  the  Christian  life,  in  refer 
ence  to  certain  circumstances,  and  as  the  root  of  important  phenomena  in  tLe  history  of 
the  church. 


408  THE   WORK   OF  REDEMPTION. 

worldly  tendency,  the  whole  life  is  involved  in  darkness.*  But  as  we  have 
seen,  Paul  presupposes  such  an  undeniable  and  partially  illuminating  know- 
ledge of  God  in  human  nature,  and  this  assumption  is  supported  by  what 
he  says  of  the  various  degrees  of  moral  development  among  mankind. 

The  idea  of  the  need  of  redemption  leads  us  to  the  Work  of  Redemp- 
tion accomplished  by  Christ.  Paul  distinguishes  in  the  work  of  Christ, 
the  two  factors  of  his  Doing  and  his  Suffering. 

Adam  and  Christ, — the  first  and  the  second  Man, — these  are  in  Paul's 
estimation  the  two  poles  on  which  the  history  of  the  world  turns.  As 
from  the  one  proceeded  sin  and  death,  so  from  the  other,  righteousness 
and#  eternal  life.  As  the  one  was  the  progenitor  of  the  earthly  humanity 
laden  with  sin  and  subject  to  death,  so  the  other  was  the  creator  of  an 
exalted  humanity,  formed  altogether  according  to  his  image.  As  Adam 
was  the  representative  of  the  whole  of  the  human  race  who  were  de- 
scended from  him,  so  is  Christ  the  representative  of  the  whole,  as  far  as 
they  are  willing  to  enter  into  communion  with  him.  And  now  there  are 
two  important  points  to  be  distinguished  in  the  life  of  Christ ;  one  is,  his 
appropriating  to  himself  human  nature  as  subject  to  sin  and  death  ;  the 
other,  his  revealing  it  in  his  divine  life,  and  perfectly  realizing  in  it  the 
law  of  holiness.  In  both  these  respects  he  has  rendered  satisfaction  to 
the  law,  enduring  what  it  threatened  to  sinful  humanity  fallen  under  its 
sentence  of  condemnation,  and  fulfilling  what  it  required  of  that  human- 
ity. In  both  respects,  Christ  appears  as  the  representative  of  the  whole 
of  mankind,  and  has  conducted  himself  as  such  in  his  suffering  and  act- 
ing ;  all  who  belong  to  him,  and,  as  belonging  to  him,  wish  to  appear  be- 
fore God,  must  appropriate  what  he  has  done  and  suffered  for  them. 
With  a  reference  to  these  two  distinguishing  points,  the  Doing  and  the 
Suffering  of  Christ,  we  wish  now  to  consider  more  attentively  Paul's  ex- 
pressions respecting  the  work  of  Christ. 

In  reference  to  the  former,  Paul  says  in  Rom.  viii.  3,  that  what  was 
impossible  to  the  law,  what  it  was  unable  to  effect,  owing  to  the  predom- 
inant sinfulness  in  human  nature,  (namely,  to  destroy  the  reign  of  sin  in 
human  nature,  which  the  law  aimed  to  effect  by  its  holy  commands,)  was 
accomplished  by  God,  when  he  sent  his  son  into  the  world  in  such  a  hu- 
man nature  as  was  in  all  respects  like  to  that  which  hitherto  had  been 
under  the  dominion  of  sin,  and  when  he  condemned  sin,  that  is,  de- 
spoiled of  its  power  and  supremacy,  and  manifested  its  powerless- 
ness  in  that  human  nature,  over  which  it  had  before  reigned,  in 
order  that  the  requirements  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  be- 
lievers, as  those  whose  lives  were  governed,  not  by  sinful  desire,  but 
by  the  Spirit,  the  divine  vital  principle  of  the  Spirit  that  proceeded 
from  Christ.f     Paul  does  not  here  speak  of  any  particular  point  in  the 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  106. 

f  The  other  interpretation  of  this  passage,  according  to  which  it  means  that  Christ  bore 
for  men  the  punishment  attached  to  sin  by  the  law,  appears  to  me  not  to  bo  favored  by  the 
context,  for  it  is  most  natural  to  refer  "the  law  could  not  do."  ddvvarov  tov  vouuv  id 


THE   WORK    OF   KEDKMPTION.  409 

life  of  Christ,  bat  contemplates  it  as  a  whole,  by  which  the  perfect  holi- 
ness required  by  the  law  was  realized.  Thus  the  reign  of  holiness  in 
human  nature  succeeds  to  the  reign  of  sin,  the  latter  is  now  destroyed 
and  the  former  established  objectively  in  human  nature ;  and  from  this 
objective  foundation  its  continued  development  proceeds.  And  in  no 
other  way  can  the  human  race  be  brought  to  fulfil  their  destiny,  the  real- 
ization of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  cannot  proceed  from  sin  and 
estrangement  from  God,  but  must  take  its  commencement  from  a  per- 
fectly holy  life,  presenting  a  perfect  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human. 
The  Spirit  of  Christ,  from  which  this  realization  of  the  ideal  of  holiness 
proceeded  in  his  own  life,  is  also  the  same  by  which  the  life  of  believers, 
who  are  received  into  his  fellowship,  is  continually  formed  according  to 
this  Archetype.  In  Rom.  v.  1 8,  Paul  opposes  to  the  one  sin  of  Adam  the  one 
holy  work  (the  iv  dutaiu)j.ia)  of  Christ.  And  if,  induced  by  the  contrast 
to  the  one  sin  of  Adam,  he  had  in  view  one  act  especially  of  Christ,  the 
offering  up  of  himself,  as  an  act  of  love  to  God  and  man,  and  of  volun- 
tary obedience  to  God,  still  this  single  act,  even  according  to  Paul's  state- 
ment, ought  not  to  be  considered  as  something  isolated,  but  as  the  clos- 
ing scene  in  harmony  with  the  whole,  by  which  he  completed  the  real- 
ization of  the  ideal  of  holiness  in  human  nature,  and  banished  sin  from 
it.  Since  he,  in  the  method  of  his  polemic  against  the  Jewish  doctrine 
of  the  desert  of  good  works,  always  opposed  himself  so  expressly  to  the 
isolated,  external,  quantitative,  moral  estimate,  so  could  he  certainly  from 
this  position  contemplate  every  particular  in  the  life  of  Christ  only  in 
connexion  with  the  holy  mind  which  animated  his  whole  life.  In  this 
view,  indeed,  the  whole  life  of  Christ  may  be  considered  as  one  holy  work. 
As  by  one  sin,  the  first  by  which  a  commencement  was  made  of  a  sinful 
life  in  the  human  race,  sin,  and  with  sin  condemnation  and  death, 
spread  among  all  mankind  ;  so  from  this  one  holy  life  of  Christ,  holiness 
and  a  life  of  eternal  happiness  resulted  for  all  mankind.  This  holy  life 
of  Christ,  God  would  consider  as  the  act  of  the  human  race,  but  it  can 
only  be  realized  in  those  who,  by  an  act  of  free  self-determination,  appro- 
priate this  work  accomplished  for  all,  and  by  this  surrender  of  themselves 
enter  through  Christ  into  a  new  relation  with  God  ;  those  who  through 
faith  are  released  from  the  connexion  with  the  life  of  sin  propagated  from 
Adam,  and  enter  into  the  fellowship  of  a  holy  life  with  Christ.  Since 
they  are  thus  in  union  with  Christ,  in  the  fellowship  of  his  Spirit,  for  his 
sake  are  presented  as  "just,"  diicaioi,  before  God,  they  share  in  all  that 
is  indissolubly  connected  with  the  holiness  of  Christ,  and  in  his  eternally 
blessed  life,  which  belongs  in  like  manner  to  them.  In  this  sense,  Paul 
says  that  from  the  one  "justification,"  diKaitopa,  of  Christ,  objective  "jus- 

the  first  clause  to  the  "condemned  sin,"  KareKpive  ttjv  djuaprlav,  in  the  last.  But  thia 
will  not  suit,  if  we  take  the  first  in  the  sense  of  condemning  and  punishing,  for  it  was  pre- 
cisely tliis  which  the  law  could  do ;  but  to  condemn  sin  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  ia 
used  in  John  xvi.  11,  and  xii.  31,  the  law  was  prevented  from  doing  by  the  opposition  of 
the  "  flesh." 


410  THE   SUFFERINGS   OF    CHRIST. 

tification,"  dtKaiuoig,  and  the  consequent  title  to  "life,"  £0)77,  comes 
upon  all  (Rom.  v.  18)  ;  that  by  the  obedience  of  one  many  shall  be 
made  righteous  (v.  19)  ;  in  which  latter  passage,  he  probably  blends  the 
objective  and  the  subjective — the  objective  imputation  of  the  ideal  of 
holiness  realized  by  Christ,  founded  in  the  divine  counsels,  or  the  manner 
in  which  the  human  race  appear  in  the  divine  sight — and  the  consequent 
subjective  realization,  gradually  developed,  which  proceeds  from  faith. 

With  respect  to  the  second  point,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  such, 
we  find  it  (not  to  mention  other  passages  where  this  idea  forms  the 
basis)  distinctly  stated  in  two  places.  In  Gal.  iii.  13,  after  the  apostle 
had  said  that  the  law  only  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  upon  men 
who  had  shown  that  they  were  guilty  of  violating  it,  he  adds,  that  Christ 
has  freed  them  from  this  condemnation,  since  on  their  account  and  in 
their  stead*  he  had  borne  this  condemnation,  by  suffering  the  punish- 
ment of  the  cross  as  a  person  accursed  by  the  law.  The  condemnation 
of  the  law  weighed,  according  to  the  external  appearance,  upon  him  who 
yet  was  perfectly  free  from  its  ban,  who  had  rendered  perfect  satisfaction 
to  its  moral  requirements.  We  have  already  intimated  above,  how  these 
words,  though  spoken  more  immediately  in  reference  to  the  Jews,  have 
yet  at  the  same  time  a  general  significancy  reaching  to  the  whole  human 
race.  The  second  passage  is  2  Cor.  v.  21.  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  the  sin- 
less one,  God  has  made  sin  for  our  sakes  ;  that  is,  putting  the  abstract 
for  the  concrete,  he  has  made  him  a  sinner,  he  has  allowed  him  to  appear 
as  a  sufferer  on  account  of  sin,  that  we  might  become  through  him  the 
righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  such  as  may  appear  before  God  as  right- 
eous ;  that,  therefore,  as  Christ,  the  Holy  One,  entered  by  his  sufferings 
into  the  fellowship  of  our  guilt,  so  we  sinners  enter  into  the  fellowship 
of  his  holiness. 

In  accordance  with  these  views,  Paul  divided  the  life  of  Christ  into 
two  parts.  At  first,  Christ  presented  himself  as  a  weak  mortal,  although 
conscious  of  possessing  a  divine  nature  and  dignity,  submitting  to  all 
the  wants  and  limitations  of  earthly  humanity,  partaking  of  all  those 
evils  which  affect  human  nature  in  connexion  with  sin,  and  as  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  so  that  in  his  outward  appearance  and  condition  he  placed 
himself  entirely  on  a  level  with  men  suffering  on  account  of  sin.  The 
consummation  of  this  state  was  the  crucifixion,  as  the  consummation  of 
the  misery  entailed  by  sin  is  in  death.  The  second  part,  was  the  life  of 
Christ  risen  and  glorified,  in  which  his  unchangeable  divine  and  blessed 
life  reveals  itself  in  perfection,  corresponding  to  that  perfect  holiness 
which  he  manifested  on  earth — for  as  sin  and  death,  so  are  sinlessness 
and  a  life  of  eternal  blessedness  correlative  ideas  in  Paul's  writings  ;  and 
as  in  Christ's  risen  and  glorified  humanity,  that  divine,  eternal,  blessed 
life  is  presented  which  corresponds  to  perfect  holiness,  so  it  is  a  practical 
proof  that  he,  in  the  earlier  portion  of  his  life,  fulfilled  the  law  of  holiness 

*  Both  those  ideas  may  bo  Included  in  the  "  for  us,"  inr-lp  q/xuv. 


CHRIST  S   HUMILIATION   AND   GLORIFICATION.  411 

in  and  for  human  nature,  and,  by  enduring  the  sufferings  incurred 
through  sin,  effected  the  release  of  mankind  from  guilt  and  punish- 
ment, and  has  assured  to  them  eternal  life,  which  will  be  communicated 
to  all  who  enter  into  fellowship  with  him  by  faith.  Thus  it  is  declared 
in  2  Cor.  xiii.  4,  that  though  Christ  was  crucified  owing  to  human  weak- 
ness, (the  crucifixion  was  the  closing  point  of  his  life  in  the  participation 
of  human  weakness)  yet  since  his  resurrection,  he  enjoys  a  life  of  divine 
power  without  any  mixture  of  human  Aveakness.  In  Rom.  vi.  10,  the 
death  of  Christ- is  spoken  of  as  bearing  a  relation  to  sin — as  an  event 
which,  but  for  sin,  would  not  have  taken  place,  and  had  for  its  only  ob- 
ject the  blotting  out  of  sin  ;  and  that  having  perfectly  attained  that  end, 
it  was  not  to  be  repeated.  The  earthly  life  and  sufferings  of  Christ  bear 
a  relation  to  sin,  as  being  the  means  of  redeeming  the  human  race  from 
it.  But  now  the  risen  and  glorified  Saviour,  having  once  completed  the 
redemption  of  human  nature,  is  separated  from  all  relation  to  sin  and  the 
evils  connected  with  it,  and,  exalted  above  all  conflicts  and  earthly  weak- 
ness, lives  in  divine  power  and  blessedness,  to  the  glory  of  God.  He  no 
longer  endures  the  sufferings  to  which  human  nature  became  subject  by 
sin,  and  he  needs  to  perform  nothing  more  for  the  extinction  of  sin ;  his 
work  has  been  completed  once  for  all.  There  remains  only  his  positive 
operation  for  the  glory  of  God,  without  the  negative  reference  to  the 
extinction  of  sin,  since  this  was  no  longer  needed.  Conscious  of  his 
divinity,  he  did  not  eagerly  retain  (Phil.  ii.  6)  equality  with  God  for  the 
mere  exhibition*  of  it,  but  divested  himself  of  the  divine  glory  which 
appertained  to  him,  presented  himself  in  the  form  of  human  dependence, 
humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto' death,  even  the  ignominious 
death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore — on  account  of  this  perfect  obedience 
rendered  under  all  human  weakness  and  suffering — God  has  exalted  him 
to  the  highest  dignity  and  rule  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  accordance 
with  this  train  of  ideas  is  Rom.  iv.  25,  where,  as  the  self-offering  of  Christ 
is  represented  as  occurring  on  account  of  sin,  so  his  resurrection  is  ad- 
duced as  a  practical  evidence  of  the  freedom  from  sin  and  the  justification 
bestowed  by  him,  by  virtue  of  the  connexion  existing,  not  only  between 
sin  and  death,  but  between  righteousness  and  eternal  life.  And  in  refer- 
ence to  the  importance  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  an  objective 
proof  of  the  release  of  human  nature  from  the  guilt  of  sin  and  the  death 
that  it  involved,  the  apostle  says  in  1  Cor.  xv.  17,  "If  Christ  be  not 
risen,  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins."  From- this  connexion  of  ideas  it  follows, 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  must  be  always  considered  in  union  with 
his  whole  life, and  as  the  close  and  consummation  of  it;  and  with  a  two- 

*  An  illustration  of  Paul's  language  maybe  found  in  an  Epistle  of  Constantino,  relat- 
ing to  some  Christians  who  eagerly  seized  on  an  unexpected  opportunity  of  returning  from 
exile  to  their  native  country :  Olov  apnayna  tl  ttjv  indvodov  iroirjoii/uevoi,  Euseb.  de  Vita 
Constan.  ii.  31;  and  the  words  of  Euseb.  himself,  Hist.  Eccles.  viii.  12,  respecting  those  who 
preferred  death  rather  than  snrrender  themselves  to  the  heathen  :  Tov  duvarov  apirayfia 
Otfievoi  r?}f  Tiliv  dvooEJiQv  fio^drjpias. 


412  SUFFKTINGS   AND   RESURRECTION    OP   CHRIST. 

fold  reference,  which,  according  to  the  Pauline  doctrine,  they  bear  to  the 
completion  of  the  work  of  redemption,  namely,  the  appropriation  of 
human  guilt,  by  entering  into  the  suffering  condition  of  man — and  the 
perfect  realization  of  the  moral  law.  And  therefore,  when  Paul  speaks 
of  what  Christ  effected  by  his  blood,  his  cross,  or  other  means,  one 
single  point  which  forms  the  consummation  and  close  of  the  whole 
stands  for  that  whole,  according  to  a  mode  of  expression  common  to 
the  sacred  writers,  since  the  whole,  in  its  full  significance,  can  be  under- 
stood only  in  connexion  with  that  single  point. 

As  the  result  of  this  work  of  Christ  for  sinful  mankind,  Paul  specifies 
Reconciliation  with  God,  Redemption,  Justification.  With  respect  to  the 
idea  of  Reconciliation,  it  cannot  have  been  conceived  by  Paul  as  if  men 
had  been  objects  of  the  divine  wrath  and  hatred,  till  Christ  appeasing 
the  divine  justice  by  his  sufferings,  by  his  intervention  on  earth,  reconciled 
an  offended  God  to  mankind,  and  made  them  again  the  objects  of  his 
love ;  for  the  plan  of  redemption  presupposes  the  love  of  God  towards 
the  race  that  needed  redemption,  and  Paul  considers  the  sending  of 
Christ,  and  his  living  and  suffering  for  mankind,  as  the  revelation  of  the 
superabounding  love  and  grace  of  God ;  Eph.  iii.  19 ;  Titus  iii.  4  ;  Rom. 
v.  8 ;  viii.  32.  And  this  counsel  of  God's  love  he  represents  as  eternal, 
so  that  the  notion  of  an  influence  on  God  produced  in  time  falls  to  the 
ground,  since  the  whole  life  and  sufferings  of  Christ  were  only  the  com- 
pletion of  the  eternal  counsel  of  divine  love.  Therefore  Paul  never  says, 
that  God  being  hostile  to  men,  became  reconciled  to  them  through  Christ, 
but  that  men  who  were  the  enemies  of  God  became  reconciled  to  him ; 
Rom.  v.  10;  2  Cor.  v.  18.*  Thus  he  calls  on  men  to  be  reconciled  to 
God ;  2  Cor.  v.  20.  The  obstacle  exists  on  the  side  of  men,  and  owing 
to  this  they  do  not  receive  the  revelation  of  the  love  of  God  into  their 
self-consciousness  ;  and  since  by  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  this  ob- 
stacle is  taken  away,  it  is  said  of  him  that  he  has  reconciled  man  to  God, 
and  made  him  an  object  of  divine  love. 

But  now  from  what  has  been  said,  we  may  attach  merely  a  subjective 
meaning  to  reconciliation ;  and  the  ideas  presupposed  by  it  of  enmity 
with  God  and  of  God's  wrath  may  appear  to  be  only  indications  of  sub- 
jective relations,  in  which  man  finds  himself  in  a  certain  state  of  disposi- 
tion towards  God — indications  of  the  way  and  manner  in  which  God 
presents  himself  to  the  conscience  of  a  man  estranged  from  him  by  sin, 
or  the  form  in  which  the  knowledge  of  God  must  develop  itself  in  con- 

*  If  we  only  reflect  upon  the  connexion  of  the  objective  and  the  subjective  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Paul  respecting  the  reconciliation  of  men  with  God,  it  will  easily  appear  that  this 
passage  is  not  chargeable  with  that  want  of  logical  connexion  and  clearness  of  conception, 
which  one  of  the  most  noted  expositors  of  the  Pauline  Epistles— Riickert — fancied  that  he 
found  in  it ;  the  love  of  truth  has,  however,  led  this  estimable  man  to  a  more  correct  view, 
and  in  the  last  edition  of  his  able  Commentary  on  the  Romans,  he  has  improved  his  analy- 
sis. See  the  remarks  made,  further  on,  on  this  connexion  betwaen  the  objective  and  the 
subjective  in  reconciliation. 


PAULINE   IDEA    OF    RECONCILIATION.  413 

nexion  with  the  consciousness  of  guilt.  Thus  by  the  term  reconciliation 
only  such  an  influence  on  the  disposition  of  man  may  be  denoted,  as 
that  by  which  it  is  delivered  from  its  former  state,  and  placed  in  another 
relation  towards  God.  Since  Christ  by  his  whole  life,  by  his  words  and 
works,  and  especially  by  his  participation  in  the  sufferings  of  humanity, 
and  by  his  sufferings  for  men,  has  revealed  God's  love  towards  those  who 
must  have  felt  themselves  estranged  from  him  by  sin — and  has  exhibited 
his  sufferings  as  a  pledge  of  the  forgiving  love  of  God,  and  his  resurrec- 
tion as  a  pledge  of  the  eternal  life  destined  for  them, — thus  he  has  kin- 
dled a  reciprocal  love  and  childlike  confidence  towards  God  in  the  souls 
of  those  who  were  unable  to  free  themselves  from  the  state  of  disquiet- 
ude of  conscience  which  was  pi*oduced  by  the  consciousness  of  guilt. 
The  reconciliation  of  man  to  God  (according  to  this  view)  consists  in  no- 
thing else  than  the  alteration  of  the  disposition,  arising  from  the  revelation 
of  God's  love  towards  fallen  humanity,  of  those  who  may  have  received 
this  revelation  into  their  self-consciousness.  Still  it  is  supposed  that  the 
reconciliation  of  man  to  God  is  not  the  result  of  any  amendment  on  the 
part  of  the  former,  but  the  amendment  is  the  result  of  the  reconciliation, 
since,  through  the  new  determination  of  the  self-consciousness  by  means 
of  love  and  confidence  towards  God,  an  altogether  new  direction  of  the 
life  towards  God  and  away  from  sin,  the  source  of  all  time  amendment 
is  produced.  According  to  this  view  also,  it  is  presupposed  that  man, 
who  feels  himself  estranged  from  God  by  sin,  finds  in  himself  no  ground 
of  confidence  towards  God,  and  requires  an  objective  ground,  a  practical 
revelation  to  which  his  own  self-consciousness  can  attach  itself,  in  order 
to  excite  and  support  his  confidence.  This  latter  is,  without  doubt,  a 
leading  point  of  the  Pauline  system,  as  it  is  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament  in  general.  All  the  exhortations  and  encouragements  of  the 
apostle  proceed  continually  from  a  reference  to  the  practical  revelation 
of  God's  redeeming  love.  Nor  can  it  be  a  valid  objection,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  v.  20,  addressing  those  who  were  already 
believers,  and  calling  on  them  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  meant  that  by 
amendment  they  entered  into  a  new  relation  to  God,  and  were  brought 
out  of  their  former  state  of  enmity ;  for  it  makes  here  no  difference 
whether  Paul  is  speaking  to  those  who  had  already  professed  Christian- 
ity, or  to  those  with  whom  this  was  not  the  case.  In  every  case,  accord- 
ing to  his  conceptions,  the  believing  appropriation  of  the  reconciliation 
of  man  with  God*  effected  through  Christ,  was  accompanied  by  a  new 
direction  of  the  life,  and  where  this  did  not  ensue,  it  was  a  sign  that  the 
believing  appropriation  had  not  taken  place,  and  the  man  was  still  desti- 
tute of  that  reconciliation  with  God  from  which  amendment  proceeds. 
In  that  very  passage,Paul  does  not  say,  Amend  yourselves  in  order  that 
you  may  be  reconciled  to  God ;  but  rather,  Let  not  the  grace  of  recon- 
ciliation appear  to  be  in  vain  for  you,  as  if  you  had  not  appropriated  it; 

*  This  is  distinctly  marked  by  his  exhortation  "  be  ye  reconciled,"  xaraAAay^re. 


114  PAULINE    IDEA    OF    RECONCILIATION. 

By  Christ's  offering  up  his  life  for  man  estranged  from  God,  man  is  ol> 
jectively  reconciled  to  God.  God  has  removed  that  which  made  the 
separation  between  himself  and  man.  But  what  has  been  objectively 
accomplished  for  all  mankind,  must  now  be  appropriated  by  each  indi- 
vidual and  thus  become  subjective.  'Hence,  according  to  these  different 
points  of  view,  Paul  could  say — "  Be  ye  reconciled  (subjectively)  to  God," 
and  "  We  are  reconciled  (objectively)  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son ;" 
Rom.  v.  10. 

But  as  respects  that  view,  in  conformity  to  which  the  life  and  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  are  considered  merely  as  a  manifestation  of  God's  love, 
an'd  the  reconciliation  effected  by  him  as  the  subjective  influence  of  this 
manifestation  on  the  human  heart,  it  is  by  no  means  exhaustive  of  the 
meaning  of  the  Pauline  declarations  already  quoted  respecting  the  re- 
demption of  Christ.  And  although  the  gross  anthropopathical  notion  of 
God's  reconciliation  with  man,  is  evidently  inconsistent  with  Paul's  train 
of  ideas,  it  does  not  follow,  that  by  the  word  reconciliation,  only  a 
subjective  change  in  the  disposition  of  man  is  denoted,  for  we  are  by  no 
means  justified  in  explaining  the  correlative  idea  of  enmity  against  God, 
viz.,  a  wrath  of  God,  merely  as  subjective,  and,  among  the  various  desig- 
reality  merely  in  the  idea  of  the  love  of  God.  On  the  contrary,  the  com- 
mon fact  of  human  consciousness,  according  to  which  a  man  addicted  to 
sin  feels  himself  estranged  from  God,  and. cannot  get  rid  of  the  feeling 
of  his  guilt  and  ill-deserts,  reveals  to  us  a  deeper  objective  ground  in  the 
moral  constitution  of  the  universe  and  in  the  essence  of  God,  which 
through  this  moral  constitution  reveals  itself  to  us.  In  this  universal 
fact,  we  have  a  witness  of  the  revelation  of  God's  holiness  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  mankind,  which  is  as  undeniable  as  the  revelation  of  his 
love.  By  the  "  wrath  of  G'od"  though  in  an  anthropopathical  form, 
something  objective  and  real  is  signified,  which  is  not  fully  expressed  by 
the  idea  of  punishment,  but  includes  what  is  the  ground  of  all  punish- 
ment, (on  which  account  this  phrase,  "  the  wrath  of  God,"  is  sometimes 
used  to  express  merely  punishment,)  the  ground  of  the  necessary  con- 
nexion between  sin  and  evil,  the  absolute  contrariety  existing  between 
God,  as  the  Holy  One,  and  sin.*  God  recognises  evil  as  evil,  as  that  which 
stands  in  contrariety  to  his  holiness,  rebels  against  him  and  his  holy  order, 
and  would  exist  independent  of  him.  This  mode  in  which  God  recog- 
nises evil,  is  also  a  sentence  of  condemnation  upon  it,  and  therein  are 
grounded  its  powerlessness  and  wretchedness.  Evil  is  denied,  if  con- 
ceived of  as  something  non-existent  to  the  mind  of  God,  a  conception, 
morever,  which  consistently  agrees  only  with  an  idea  of  God  wholly 
different  from  the  biblical  one,  with  a  mode  of  thought  by  which  the  idea 
of  the  Absolute  is  put  in  the  place  of  the  idea  of  the  Living  God. 

As  now  this  unhappy  relation  of  man  to  God  is  grounded  in  the 

*  Compare  Twesten's  Dogmatik,  II.  i.,  p.  146. 


ON   FORGIVENESS    OF   SINS.  415 

divine  holiness,  so  also  can  his  freedom  from  this  relation  be  obtained  only 
in  a  way  answering  to  the  laws  of  the  Divine  holiness.  The  work  pro- 
ceeds only  from  the  compassionate  love  of  God  to  the  fallen  ;  but  love 
acts  in  harmony  with  the  holiness  of  God  as  holy  love,  revealing  itself  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  This  connexion  is  specially  pointed  out  by 
Paul  in  Rom.  iii.  25.  In  this  passage,  he  contrasts  the  revelation  of  God's 
holiness  at  that  time  by  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  and  the  non-pun- 
ishment of  past  sins  before  the  appearance  of  the  gospel.  By  the  "  re- 
mission of  sins,"  ndpeaig  ru>v  d[iapTrn.id~G)v,  and  the  "  forbearance  of 
God,"  dvoxr]  rov  deov,  he  understands  the  manner  in  which  the  conduct 
of  God  appeared  to  exhibit  itself  in  reference  to  sin  before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  gospel,  especially  towards  the  heathen  world,  which  knew 
nothing  of  the  Old  Testament  revelations  of  the  holiness  of  God  in  op- 
position to  sin,  and  also  towards  the  Jews,  who,  notwithstanding  these 
testimonies, by  the  delay  of  the  final  divine  judgments  for  their  sins,  instead 
of  interpreting  the  long-suffering  of  God  as  a  call  to  repentance,  were  sunk 
in  carnal  security.  We  may  compare  with  this,  Paul's  language  in  Acts 
xvii.  30,  speaking  of  the  times  of  ignorance  that  God  had  overlooked; 
though  this  is  to  be  understood  only  relatively,  in  reference  to  the 
different  stages  of  historical  development,  for  Paul  recognised,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  in  the  moral  nature  of  the  heathen,  a  revelation  of 
the  divine  law,  of  the  divine  holiness  and  punitive  justice.  But  under 
their  peculiar  circumstances,  there  was,  from  a  kind  of  necessity,  a  general 
obscuration  of  that  religious  and  moral  knowledge  by  which  their  think- 
ing and  acting  was  regulated.  This  induced  on  the  part  of  God  a  pass- 
ing over,  a  non-imputation  of  offences ;  since  the  reckoning  taken  of 
transgressions  is  also  determined  by  the  measure  of  the  possible  knowl- 
edge of  the  law;  Rom.  v.  13.*  Thus  there  may  be  a  chargeableness 
and  a  non-chargeableness  under  different  aspects,  by  which  the  apparent 
contradictions  in  Paul's  language  may  be  reconciled. 

Paul  in  Rom.  iii.  25,  declares  in  general,  that  for  both  the  Jews  and 
heathens  a  revelation  of  the  divine  wrath  must  precede  the  revelation  of 
the  grace  that  forgives  sin.  The  Trdpeoicf  denotes  only  what  was  nega- 
tive and  temporary,  the  non-punishment  of  past  sins  on  the  part  of  God, J 
so  that  the  sense  of  the  guilt  of  sin  is  not  presupposed,  and  the  removal 
of  that  sense  is  not  effected.  The  depeate,  on  the  other  hand,  denotes,  ob- 
jectively, that  act  of  God  by  which  sin  is  really  forgiven,  that  is,  is  con- 
sidered in  relation  to  God  and  the  moral  constitution  of  the  universe  as 
not  existing ;  and,  subjectively,  that  operation  in  the  heart  of  man  by 
which  it  is  really  freed  from  the  consciousness  of  guilt.     This  means  far 

*  See  page  402. 

\  irdpeois  and  aQsais  are  both  rendered  "remission"  in  our  English  version;  but  the 
former  denotes  rather  pretermission  or  passing  by,  and  the  latter  strictly  remission  or  for- 
giveness.— Ed. 

|  In  scholastic  language,  -Kaptoiq  may  be  referred  to  the  voluntas  signi,  (will  aa  reveal- 
ed,) and  d<p£rri<  to  the  wlunias  beneplaciti,  (will   as  immanent.) 


416  THE  DIVINE    HOLTNESS    REVEALED. 

move  than  the  non-punishment  of  sin  during  a  certain  period.  In  those 
to  whom  this  act  of  God  relates,  the  consciousness  of  guilt  and  of  divine 
wrath,  6pyr),  the  subjective  revelation  of  the  divine  punitive  justice,  is 
presupposed  ;  and  the  operation  that  takes  place  in  their  dispositions 
necessarily  implies  forsaking  a  life  of  sin,  and  the  renunciation  of  all  fel- 
lowship with  sin.  According  to  the  connexion  of  ideas  in  Paul's  mind, 
we  are  led  to  view  the  subject  as  follows  :  in  contrast  with  that  former 
apparent  overlooking  of  sin  on  the  part  of  God,  the  holiness  of  God 
is  at  this  time  manifested  by  his  openly  exhibiting  Christ,  through  his 
offering  up  of  himself,  as  a  reconciler  or  sin-offering  for  the  sins  of  man 
kind,  so  that  he  verifies  himself  as  the  Holy  One,  and  permits  every  one 
to  appear  before  him  as  holy,*  who  shows  that  he  is  in  fellowship  with 
Christ  by  faith.  The  holiness  of  God  manifests  itself  (according  to  the 
Pauline  connexion  of  ideas  already  noticed)  in  the  life  and  death  of  Christ 
in  a  twofold  manner.  First,  inasmuch  as  he  completely  realized  (in 
opposition  to  sin  which  had  hitherto  been  predominant  in  human  nature) 
that  holy  law  to  which  the  life  of  man  was  designed  to  correspond, — 
made  satisfaction  to  the  moral  order  of  the  universe  and  the  honor  of 
God,  and  glorified  God  in  that  nature  which  was  originally  designed  to 
glorify  him.  God  has  verified  himself  as  the  Holy  One,  since  he  forgives 
sin  only  on  the  condition  of  the  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  law  ;  he  has 
shown  that  he  remits  nothing  from  the  requirements  of  perfect  holiness, 
and  we  always  bear  in  mind  that  this  remission,  to  those  who  through  it 
obtained  justification,  is  not  a  mere  outward  act,  but  becomes  in  all  the 
cause  and  pledge  of  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  law.  Secondly,  inas- 
much as  Christ,  as  perfectly  holy,  underwent  those  sufferings  which  the 
divine  holiness,  considered  as  punitive  justice  f  in  its  opposition  against 
sin,  had  suspended  over  human  nature.     We  are  not  to  conceive  of  this, 

*  Thai  we  ought  not  to  translate  Ackcuos  righteous,  but  holy,  appears  from  that  meaning 
of  this  word  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  Slkolovv,  to  declare  a  person  diicaioc. 

f  That  divine  attribute  which  reveals  itself  in  the  necessary  connexion  of  sin  and  evil, 
is  founded  in  the  reaction  of  the  holiness  of  God  against  sin  (=  the  wrath  of  God),  and  ex- 
hibits itself  in  the  reaction  of  the  moral  order  of  the  universe  against  wickedness,  wheuce  pun- 
ishment proceeds.  To  conceive  of  punishment  as  merely  reformatory,  and  to  suppose  such 
a  conception  to  be  exhaustive  of  its  meaning,  is  to  degrade  rational  creatures  and  to  regard 
morality  as  a  purely  mechanical  production.  But  if  punishment  is  viewed  at  first  as  a 
revelation  of  the  divine  justice,  as  an  objective  reaction  of  the  moral  order  of  the  universe 
against  evil,  another  mode  of  viewing  it  also  presents  itself,  according  to  which  the  pun- 
ishment, necessary  in  itself,  is  appointed  by  the  love  of  God,  in  order,  since  punishment  and 
sin  stand  in  this  internal  connexion  with  one  another,  to  lead  thereby  to  a  consciousness 
of  sin  and  guilt,  to  make  rational  creatures  sensible  of  the  relation  they  stand  in  to  the 
moral  world,  and  thus  to  call  forth  the  feeling  of  the  need  of  redemption.  The  self-will 
which  rebels,  in  sin,  against  the  moral  order  of  the  universe  and  God's  holy  law,  must  be 
humbled,  by  suffering,  before  the  holy  omnipotence  of  God  and  the  majesty  of  the  moral 
order  of  the  universe  and  of  law.  Where  submission  is  not  yielded  freely,  it  will  be  compelled. 
Without  the  idea  of  punishment,  the  reality  of  evil  and  the  dignity  of  rational  creatures 
oannot  be  acknowledged.  It  belongs  to  the  privileges  of  rational  beings  created  in  the  like- 
ness of  God,  and  distinguishes  them  from  other  existences  in  nature,  that  the  idea  cf  pun- 


THE    IDEAS    OF    AnOAYTPflSIS,  XS1THPIA.  417 

as  if  God  arbitrarily  imposed  these  sufferings,  or  Christ  had  arbitrarily 
subjected  himself  to  them ;  but  that  it  was  naturally  grounded  on  the 
assumption  of  human  nature  in  its  present  condition  and  relation  to  God 
— as  the  divine  punitive  justice  revealed  itself  to  them  who  were  suffer- 
ing the  consequences  of  sin — and  thus  it  was  accomplished  through  the 
historical  development  of  the  life  of  Christ  devoted  to  conflict  with  the 
sin  that  reigned  in  the  human  race,  and  thrqugh  his  condescending  to 
their  condition  from  the  sympathy  of  love.* 

With  the  idea  of  reconciliation,  the  ideas  of  "  redemption,"  "  salva- 
tion," "justification,"  drroXvrpcooig,  G(orrjpia,  diKaiGHJic;,  are  closely  con- 
nected. The  two  first  terms  are  used  in  a  wider  and  a  narrower  sense  ; 
they  denote  the  deliverance  from  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin,  the 
"  salvation  from  wrath,"  cuirrjpia  dnb  Trjg  opyjfc,  the  original,  negative 
moment,  with  which  also  the  positive  is  necessarily  given,  Rom.  v.  9, 
first  objectively  as  what  has  been  gained  by  Christ  for  the  human  race  ; 
and  then  subjectively,  what  is  effectuated  by  progressive  development  in 
each  individual  by  personal  appropriation,  from  his  first  entrance  into 
fellowship  with  the  Redeemer  to  the  complete  participation  in  the  Re- 
deemer's glory  and  blessedness  in  the  perfected  kingdom  of  God ;  but 
more  especially  what  belongs  to  the  perfect  realization  of  the  last  idea, 
the  complete  freedom  from  sin  and  all  its  consequences,  from  all  evil 
both  natural  and  moral. f 

With  respect  to  the  idea  of  Justification,  in  order  to  determine  it, 
we  must  refer  to  what  we  have  already  remarked  on  the  Pauline  opposi- 
tion to  the  common  Jewish  notion  of  righteousness  ;  (see  p.  383.)  He 
sets  out  from  the  same  point  as  his  adversaries,  as  far  as  he  considers  the 
participation  in  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
mdissolubly  connected  with  "  righteousness,"  the  genuine  theocratic 
disposition   and  condition  of  life.      Therefore  the  correlative   idea   of 

ishment  finds  its  application  in  them.  See  the  excellent  remarks  of  Twesten,  in  his 
Dogmatik,  II.  i.  p.  148. 

*  The  Pauline  view  of  the  work  of  redemption  finds  its  point  of  connexion  with  Christ's 
words  in  the  first  Gospels,  in  Matt.  xx.  28,  whether  we  consider  "ransom,"  Xvrpnv,  as  a 
sum  paid  for  release  from  captivity  or  slavery,  or  for  redemption  from  deserved  punish- 
ment ;  also  in  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper,  (in  which  he  .evidently  alluded  to  the 
connection  between  the  Passover  and  the  establishment  of  the  Old  Covenant,)  which  by 
the  offering  of  himself  to  obtain  and  confirm  the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  mankind,  marked 
the  establishment  of  the  New  Covenant.  The  Pauline  views  are  also  supported  by  the 
manner  in  which  Christ  adopts  the  ideas  of  the  wrath  of  God  and  of  punitive  justice  from 
the  Old  Testament,  without  casting  a  doubt  on  their  validity.  The  parablo  of  the  Lost 
Son,  and  other  expressions  which  relate  to  forgiving  love,  offer  no  contradiction,  but  mark 
precisely  the  side  on  which  God  reveals  himself  in  the  work  of  redemption,  and  what, 
humanly  speaking,  could  be  the  only  motive  to  such  an  act  of  God  towards  a  race  es- 
tranged from  him  by  sin ;  they  do  not,  however,  determine  the  manner  in  which  the  result 
designed  by  divine  love  is  to  be  attained;  the  form  and  order  followed  by  the  compassion- 
ate love  of  God,  for  the  love  of  God  acts  only  as  a  holy  and  righteous  love. 

\  uirolvTpuair  is  found  in  the  latter  sense  in  Rom.  viii.  23  ;  Eph.  i.  14 ;  and  ourripia 
In  the  latter  sense  'n  Rom.  xiii.  11 ;  1  Peter  L  5. 


418  THE    IDEA    OF    AIKAUmS. 

righteousness  in  this  sense  was  blessedness,  the  participation  of  the  bless- 
ings promised  through  Abraham  to  all  his  posterity,  the  fulfilment  of 
all  the  promises  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  all  the  privileges  of  the 
children  of  God  ;  and  an  entrance  into  all  the  relations  in  which  they 
stand  to  God.  But  Paul  maintained  against  the  Jews  and  Judaizers, 
that  by  the  law  and  the  working  of  the  law,  no  one  could  attain  this 
"righteousness,"  diKaioavvr],  could  present  himself  as  "righteous," 
fiiKaiog,  before  God,  and  enter  into  the  relation  with  God  founded 
upon  it ;  but  that  every  man  appears  as  a  sinner  in  God's  sight,  till  en- 
tering by  faith  into  fellowship  with  Christ  (the  only  perfect  dltcatoc  by 
whom  mankind  are  delivered,  in  the  way  that  we  have  described,  from 
the  state  of  duapria),  he  presents  himself  in  union  with  Christ  (hv  Xpi* 
ctu>)  as  "  righteous"  before  God,  and  enters  into  the  entire  relation  with 
God  implied  in  this  predicate,  is  viewed  by  God  as  "  righteous,"  and 
established  in  all  the  privileges  connected  with  this  idea  (dutaiovrai). 
Consequently,  Paul  includes  in  the  idea  of  "justification,"  ducaioxnc,  that 
act  of  God,  by  which  he  places  the  believer  in  Christ  in  the  relation  to 
himself  of  a  righteous  person,  notwithstanding  the  sin  that  still  cleaves 
to  him.  Righteousness  denotes,  then,  the  subjective  appropriation  of 
this  relation,  the  appearing  righteous  before  God,  by  virtue  of  faith  in 
the  Redeemer,  and  also  the  whole  new  tendency  and  aim  of  life  insepara- 
ble from  faith,  as  well  as  that  whole  new  relation  to  God  now  received 
into  the  consciousness,  which  is  also  necessarily  connected  with  faith  ;  the 
righteousness  or  perfect  holiness  of  Christ  appropriated  by  faith,  as  the 
objective  ground  of  confidence  for  the  believer,  and  also  as  a  new  sub- 
jective principle  of  life.  Thus  the  righteousness  of  faith  in  the  Pauline 
sense  includes  the  essence  of  a  new  disposition  ;  and  hence  the  idea  of 
righteousness  may  easily  pass  into  the  idea  of  holiness,  though  the  two 
ideas  are  originally  distinct.  Accordingly,  it  is  not  any  arbitrary  act  on 
the  part  of  God,  as  if  he  regarded  and  treated  as  sinless  a  man  persisting 
in  sin,  simply  because  he  believes  in  Christ;  but  the  objective  on  the  part 
of  God,  corresponds  to  the  subjective  on  the  part  of  man,  namely,  faith, 
and  this  necessarily  includes  in  itself  a  release  from  the  state  inherited 
from  Adam,  from  the  whole  life  of  sin,  and  the  entrance  into  spiritual  fel- 
lowship with  the  Redeemer,  the  appropriation  of  his  divine  life.  As  the 
realization  of  the  archetype  of  holiness  through  Christ,  contains  the 
pledge  that  this  shall  be  realized  in  all  those  who  are  one  with  him  by 
faith,  and  are  become  the  organs  of  his  Spirit ;  so  its  germ  and  principle 
are  already  imparted  to  them  in  believing,  although  the  fruit  of  a  life 
perfectly  conformed  to  the  Redeemer,  can  only  be  developed  gradually 
in  its  temporal  manifestation.  What  comes  gradually  to  pass  in  time, 
appears  to  the  eye  which  is  not  shut  in  by  the  limits  of  time  as  some- 
thing already  completed  ;  all  that  in  the  beginning  lies  in  the  germ  and 
the  principle,  all  that  will  proceed  thence,  is  presented  as  already  pres» 
ent.  The  connexion  of  these  ideas  will  be  rendered  clearer  by  develop 
ing  the  Pauline  idea  of  faith. 


THE    NATURE    OF   FAITH.  419 

What  Paul  distinguished  by  the  name  of  Faith,  has  its  root  in  the 
depths  of  the  human  heart.  It  presupposes  a  revelation  of  God  in  a 
direct  relation  to  man,  and  faith  is  the  reception  and  vital  appropriation 
of  this  divine  revelation  by  virtue  of  a  receptivity  for  the  divine  in  the 
human  disposition,  of  a  tendency  grounded  in  human  nature  and  the 
need  implanted  in  it  for  believing  in  the  supernatural  and  divine,  without 
which  tendency  and  need,  man,  however  his  other  faculties  might  be  cul- 
tivated, would  be  no  more  than  an  intelligent  animal.*  Something  must 
be  presented  as  "an  object  of  knowledge,  but  this  object  must  be  of  a 
kind  that  can  be  correctly  recognised  and  understood  only  by  the  dis- 
position ;  it  presupposes  a  certain  tendency  of  the  disposition,  in  order  to 
be  known  and  understood,  while  it  also  tends  to  produce  a  decided  and 
enduring  tendency  of  the  disposition.  An  inward  self-determination  of 
the  spirit,  grounded  in  the  direction  of  the  will,  is  claimed  by  this  object, 
while  a  new  and  constant  self-determination  is  produced  by  it. 

It  is  not  in  reference  to  the  object  of  faith,  but  to  the  inward  sub- 
jective significance  of  this  act  of  the  inner  man,  as  that  which  forms  the 
characteristic  of  true  piety  in  all  ages,  that  Paul  compares  the  faith  of 
Abraham  with  the  faith  of  Christians,  Rom.  iv.  19,  if.,  where  he  exhibits 
Abraham  as  a  pattern  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.  When  "Abraham 
received  a  promise  from  God,  of  which  the  fulfilment  seemed  to  be  in- 
compatible with  the  natural  order  of  things,  he  raised  himself  by  an  act 
of  faith  above  this  impediment,  and  the  word  of  the  Almighty  which 
held  forth  something  invisible,  had  greater  influence  upon  him  than  that 
order  of  nature  which  presented  itself  to  his  understanding  and  bodily 
senses.  Hence  this  faith,  as  a  practical  acknowledgment  of  God  in  his 
almighty  creative  activity,  which  no  law  of  nature  binds,  and  as  a  refer- 
ence of  his  whole  life  to  the  sense  of  his  dependence  on  God,  was  a  true 
honoring  of  God  :f  and  it  was  this  faith  which  gave  its  peculiar  signifi- 
cance and  character  to  the  life  of  Abraham.  This  faith,  says  Paul,  was 
counted  to  him  by  God  for  righteousness  ;  that  is,  although  Abraham 
was  not  sinless,  (as  no  man  is),  yet  through  this  tendency  of  his  inward 
life  by  virtue  of  his  faith,  he  entered  into  the  relation  to  God  of  a  right- 
eous man  ;  and  this  was  no  arbitrary,  nominal  act  on  the  part  of  God, 
but  his  faith  was  viewed  by  God,  to  whom  the  inward  soul  of  man  is 
manifest,  as  a  state  of  the  moral  disposition  by  which  Abraham  became 
susceptible  of  all  divine  communications,  and  from  which  alone  the 
sanctification  of  his  whole  life  could  proceed.^ 

It  is  evident  that  Paul  attaches  no  foreign  meaning  to  the  passage  m 
Gen.  xv.  6,  but  only  from  the  special  case  develops  a  general  idea  con- 

*  A  state  to  which  the  intellectual  fanaticism  of  a  party  in  the  present  age,  zealous 
for  the  pretended  autonomy  of  reason,  seeks  to  degrade  man. 

f  A  "  giving  glory  to  God,"  difiovai  So^av  rw  fteui.     Rom.  iv.  20. 

X  The  "  therefore,"  <5<?>,  in  Romans  iv.  22,  points  to  tins  connexion.  Wherefore,  aa 
faith  includes  all  this,  as  the  apostle  had  before  explained,  it  was  imputed  to  Abraham  aa ' 
"  righteousness,"  dinaioovvT),  as  if  the  dmatoavvT]  had  already  been  completed  by  it. 


420  ABRAHAM   AN   EXAMPLE    OF   FAITH. 

tained  in  it,  a  general  law  lying  at  its  base.  It  is  the  law,  on  which, 
for  the  right  relation  of  man  to  God,  in  the  surrender  of  the  soul  to  him 
through  faith  everything  depends.  This  inward  act  of  the  spirit  by  which 
the  whole  direction  of  the  life  is  determined  toward  God  and  from  God, 
Paul  presents  in  opposition  to  the  religious  externality  of  Jewish  concep- 
tions, which  would,  even  in  reference  to  Abraham's  position  in  the  The- 
ocracy, lay  the  greatest  stress  on  the  work  or  external  rite  of  circum- 
cision. The  meaning  also  of  the  Old  Testament  passage  is  no  other  than 
this,  that  God  accepted  the  Faith,  the  believing  confidence  of  Abraham, 
as  a  proof  of  the  right  state  of  his  disposition, — regarded  him  on  account 
of  it  as  "  righteous,"  p*t»,  and  established  him  in  the  whole  relation  that 
was  founded  on  it.  Paul  lays  a  stress  upon  the  fact  that  it  was  so  im- 
puted to  him  by  God,  and  he  thus  presupposes  what  he  might  as  a 
general  truth,  that  Abraham  was  as  little  as  ever  a  sinless  and,  in  that 
sense,  a  righteous  man,  and  hence,  he  concludes  that  what  was  wanting  to 
him  in  subjective  righteousness  would  be  compensated  by  the  faith  which 
so  availed  before  God,  that  he,  on  account  of  it,  was  treated  as  a  righ- 
teous man.  He  also  distinguishes  expressly  (following  the  historical 
references)  the  object  of  faith  in  Abraham,  Rom.  iv.  18,  from  what  is  the 
object  of  faith  in  Christians,  but  also  brings  forward  the  analogy  between 
the  two.  The  faith  of  Abraham  had  relation  to  the  divine  omnipotence 
in  raising  the  dead  to  a  new  life,  and  in  granting  a  numerous  posterity  to 
one  who  was  past  age ;  the  faith  of  Christians  has  relation  to  what  also 
is  opposed  to  sensible  appearances — that  a  man  laden  with  sins  should 
appear  before  God  as  righteous,  that  the  spiritually  dead  are  awakened 
to  a  new  life,  and  as  a  pledge  of  this,  something  which  also  can  only  be 
an  object  of  faith,  namely,  that  act  of  the  divine  omnipotence  by  which 
Christ  who  died  for  the  sins  of  the  world  has  been  raised  to  a  life  exalted 
above  all  death. 

As  respects  the  peculiarity  of  Christian  faith,  this  presupposes  the 
consciousness  of  sin,  the  renunciation  of  any  merits  of  our  own  before 
God,  the  longing  after  freedom  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  and  our  not 
yielding  to  despair  even  under  the  most  vivid  sense  of  sinfulness,*  but 
confiding  in  the  grace  of  redemption  ;  thus  there  is  an  entrance  into 
communion  with  the  Redeemer,  and  a  new  principle  of  life  is  received 
which  more  and  more  penetrates  and  transforms  the  whole  old  nature. 

As  far  as  faith  includes  entering  into  vital  fellowship  with  the  Re- 
deemer, and  forsaking  the  old  life  of  sin,  it  bears  a  special  reference  to 
the  two  chief  points  in  which  Christ  presents  himself  as  Redeemer,  as  the 
one  who  died  for  the  salvation  of  men,  and  who  also  by  his  resurrection 
gives  assurance  of  an  eternal  divine  life  :  hence  the  two-fold  reference  of 
faith  to  Jesus  the  Crucified  and  the  Risen,  the  negative  and  positive  side 
of  faith  in  relation  to  the  old  life  which  it  renounces,  and  to  the  new  life 
which  it  lays  hold  of;  it  is  the  spiritual  act  by  virtue  of  which,  in  sur- 

*  In  this  reapect,  a  moreveiv  nap'  fkniSa  hir'  hXnidi.     Rom.  iv.  18. 


FAITH   IN   A   CRUCIFIED  AND    RISEN   SAVIOUR.  421 

rendering  ourselves  to  him  who  died  for  us,  we  die  to  a  life  of  sin,  to  the 
world,  to  ourselves,  to  all  which  we  were  before, — whether  we  were  Jews 
or  Gentiles — and  rise  again  in  his  fellowship,  in  the  power  of  his  Spirit, 
to  a  new  life  devoted  only  to  him  and  animated  by  him.  Hence  it  ap- 
peared to  the  apostle,  as  he  develops  the  sentiment  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  an  absolute  contradiction  for  any  one  to 
say  that  he  believed  in  the  Redeemer  and  yet  to  continue  in  his  old  life 
of  sin.  How  shall  we — he  asks — we  who  ("by  the  act  of  faith)  are  dead 
to  sin,  live  any" longer  therein?  And  he  demonstrates  from  the  nature 
of  faith  in  its  reference  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  that  faith 
cannot  exist  without  a  renunciation  of  the  former  sinful  life  and  the 
beginning  of  a  new  divine  life. 

From  the  nature  of  faith  as  the  governing  principle  of  the  Christian 
life,  arises  the  peculiarity  of  Christianity  in  its  relation  to  Judaism  as 
a  system  of  Legalism ;  and  the  various  indications  of  this  contrariety 
serve  more  distinctly  to  characterise  the  nature  of  faith  as  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  Christian  life,  on  which  account  we  wish  to 
consider  the  subject  more  in  detail. 

The  law  always  presents  itself  as  imperative,  and  makes  the  salva- 
tion of  men  dependent  on  the  perfect  fulfilment  of  all  its  commands. 
"  Do  all  this,  and  thou  shalt  live."*  But  since  no  one  can  fulfil  these 
conditions,  the  law  can  only  produce  despair.  But  the  gospel  addresses 
the  man  who  despairs  of  himself :  Do  not  give  thyself  up  to  the  feeling 
of  despair.  Ask  notf  how  thou  canst  make  the  impossible,  possible.  Thou 
needest  only  to  receive  the  salvation  prepared  for  thee ;  only  believe, 
and  thou  hast  with  thy  faith  all  that  is  needful  for  thy  inward  life.     Paul 

*  Here  also  we  must  distinguish  between  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words,  in  their 
direct  historical  reference,  and  the  general  idea  lying  at  their  basis;  likewise  between  the 
vofiog  as  an  external  theocratic  State-law,  and  the  vofiog  according 'to  its  internal  meaning 
as  an  expression  in  a  particular  form  of  the  eternal  moral  law,  the  law  for  the  universal 
kingdom  of  God  both  in  the  letter  and  spirit.  In  the  one  case,  we  speak  of  the  com- 
mands of  the  State-law  as  such,  which  the  oitizens  are  really  able  to  fulfil,  and  the  living 
happily  in  the  earthly  Theocracy  is  made  dependent  on  such  fulfilment ;  in  the  other  case, 
we  speak  of  the  fulfilling  of  the  moral  law,  the  internal  theocratic  law,  to  which  satisfac- 
tion can  be  given  by  nothing  less  than  universal,  unconditional  obedience,  and  the  endless 
life  of  blessedness  in  the  universal  kingdom  of  God  which  is  made  dependent  on  such  an 
obedience.     This  is  a  condition  which  no  man  in  the  present  state  is  able  to  fulfil 

f  That  interpretation  of  this  passage,  Rom.  x.  5-10,  which  supposes  it  to  express  the 
opposition  between  Belief  and  Doubt,  appears  to  me  to  be  opposed  by  the  connexion, 
which  leads  us  to  expect  a  contrast  of  the  righteousness  by  faith  with  the  righteousness 
by  works,  the  dtov  SiKaioawr}  with  the  I6ia  in  verse  3 ;  to  be  opposed  by  the  meaning 
of  the  phrase  "  that  is,"  tovt"  lari,  in  verse  6,  which,  from  comparing  Rom.  ix.  8,  and 
other  similar  Pauline  expressions,  must  be  understood  as — "this  is  equivalent  to  say- 
ing;" and  to  be  opposed,  furthermore,  by  the  relation  of  the  Pauline  words  to  the  Old 
Testament  quotation,  since,  according  to  the  interpretation  we  have  adopted,  the  Pauline 
application  admirably  suits,  in  spirit  and  ideas,  the  meaning  of  the  Mosaic  words,  which  is 
tot  the  case  with  the  other  interpretation. 


422  THE  GOSPEL  CONTRASTED  WITH  THE  LAW. 

admirably  illustrates  this  by  applying  to  it  the  passage  in  Deut.xxx.l  2.* 
Say  not  to  thyself,  Who  shall  ascend  to  heaven  and  prepare  a  path  tor 
me1  thither?  For  Christ  has  descended  from  heaven  and  has  prepared 
such  a  path.  To  ask  such  a  question,  is  to  desire  that  Christ  would 
descend  again  from  heaven  for  thy  sake.  But  say  not,  Who  shall 
descend  for  me  to  the  regions  of  the  dead  and  deliver  me  thence  ? 
Christ  has  risen  from  the  dead  and  has  delivered  thee  from  the  power 
of  death.  To  ask  this,  is  to  desire  that  Christ  might  now  rise  from 
the  dead  for  thy  sake,  as  if  he  were  not  already  risen.  Instead  of  ask- 
ing such  questions,  only  let  the  gospel  be  cherished  with  vital  power  in 
thy  heart ; — believe  in  Him  who  descended  from  heaven  and  rose  from 
death,  and  thus  obtained  salvation  for  thee.  Whoever  has  this  faith  is 
truly  pious  and  may  be  assured  of  salvation. "f 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  legal  Judaism,  the  commandments  appeared 
as  merely  an  outward  counteraction  of  the  internal  corruption  of  man, 
which  refused  to  be  cured  from  without ;  it  was  only  rendered  more  ap- 
parent by  the  law  ;  hence  the  letter  only  tended  to  death  ;  it  called  forth 
the  consciousness  of  spiritual  death  and  of  merited  unhappiness,  2  Cor. 
iii.  6,  ff.  The  law  in  reference  to  the  effect  which  it  must  produce  in  con- 
sciousness, could  be  described  only  as  a  law  of  the  letter,  of  condemna- 
tion, of  death,  of  sin,  (yo^iog  ypdfifiarog,  KaraKpiaeojg,  davarov,  diiapriag.l) 
But  when  from  faith  in  the  Redeemer  a  new  divine  principle  of  life  pro- 
ceeds, when  from  faith  in  the  redeeming  fatherly  love  of  God  a  child- 
like love  develops  itself  as  the  free  impulse  of  a  life  devoted  to  God, 
when,  instead  of  the  former  opposition  between  the  human  and  the  divine 
will,  a  union  is  formed  between  them — then  the  law  no  longer  appears 
as  &  written  code,  outwardly  opposing  a  will  estranged  from  God,  but 
the  spirit  of  the  law  is  transfused  into  the  internal  life  of  the  believer. 
The  indwelling  divine  life  of  itself  impels  them  to  the  fulfilment  of  all 
that  the  law  demands.     The  life-giving  spirit,  harmonizing  with  the  law, 

*  This  passage  certainly  refers  to  the  Mosaic  religious  institutions,  and  the  words  are 
fitted  to  distinguish  them  in  their  simple  religious  and  moral  character  from  the  other 
religions  of  the  East.  But  as  far  as  the  law,  understood  according  to  its  own  spirit,  made 
certain  requirements  which  it  gave  no  power  to  fulfil,  Paul  might  justly  apply  these 
words  to  mark  the  peculiar  Christian  position,  might  find  an  idea  here  expressed  which 
is  only  realized  by  Christianity,  and  is  thus  prophetic  of  what  Christianity  alone  accom- 
plishes. 

f  Rom.  x.  5.  If  Paul,  in  the  second  member  of  the  contrast,  has  not  opposed  Christ 
to  Moses,  and  employed  Christ's  own  words — and  such,  no  doubt,  might  have  been  found 
among  the  traditionary  expressions  of  Christ  which  would  have  been  specially  fit  to  mark 
this  contrast — it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  unacquainted  with  any  collection  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ,  or  that  he  could  not  suppose  any  such  work  to  be  known  by  the  Chris- 
tians at  Rome,  for  his  object  was  answered  by  borrowing  from  the  Mosaic  wrilings  a 
motto  for  the  righteousness  of  faith,  which  would  first  find  its  proper  fulfilment  in  the 
gospel. 

\  It  was  perfectly  consonant  with  the  Pauline  views  to  distinguish  the  law  by  these 
predicates,  though  it  may  be  doubted  whether,  in  Rom.  viii.  2,  the  Mosaic  law  is  intended 
by  the  word  vofiog. 


THE  LAW  ABROGATED  BY  FAITH.  423 

occupies  the  place  of  the  dead  and  death-producing  letter.  In  the  love 
developed  from  faith,  there  is  a  voluntary  fulfilment  of  the  law  proceed- 
ing from  the  disposition,  instead  of  actions  the  result  of  outward  compul- 
sion. In  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  Paul,  speaking  as  a  natural 
man,  says  that  he  had  the  law  written  on  his  heart,  he  says,  speaking  as 
a  believer,  that  he  carried  the  law  of  God  in  his  heart — for,  to  the 
natural  man,  the  law,  even  though  internal,  presents  itself  as  the  com- 
mand of  a  foreign,  higher  voice,  of  a  holy  power  which  man  is  forced 
to  acknowledge  in  opposition  to  his  corrupted  will ;  hence,  it  remains  a 
deadly  letter,  whether  we  consider  it  as  an  external  law  or  an  internal 
revelation.  On  the  contrary,  in  believers,  the  divine  law,  by  virtue  of 
the  new  spirit  of  life,  the  Holy  Spirit  imparted  by  Christ,  appears  not 
merely  as  an  object  of  knowledge  and  recognition,  but  of  an  efficacious 
love  practically  influencing  the  life  ;  it  has  become  an  inward  law  of  life. 
In  this  sense,  Paul  says  to  believers,  "  Ye  need  not  that  I  write  unto 
you,  for  ye  yourselves  are  taught  of  God,"  1  Thess.  iv.  9  ;  and  this 
teaching  does  not  signify  something  addressed  to  the  faculty  -of  acquir- 
ing knowledge,  but  a  real  internal  effect  on  the  springs  of  action.  From 
what  has  been  said,  we  may  learn  in  what  sense  Paul  said  of  the  law 
in  reference  to  its  moral  not  less  than  to  its  ritual  contents,  that  it  was 
abrogated  for  believers,  that  they  were  dead  to  it,  and  placed  beyond  its 
jurisdiction;*  and  as  we  have  before  remarked,  no  such  distinction  in 
reference  to  its  perpetuity  can  be  made  in  the  vo'/ioc.  The  law  is  abro- 
gated for  the  believer,  and  he  is  in  every  respect  dead  to  it,  in  so  far  as 
it  was  a  compulsory,  imperative,  accusing  code,  in  so  far  as  righteous- 
ness and  life  were  to  be  sought  for  by  the  fulfilment  of  its  commands. 
To  the  believer,  indeed,  justification  and  salvation,  independent  of  every 
law,  are  certain  through  faith  in  the  grace  of  redemption  f  The  law 
can  produce  only  outward  worksj  by  its  compulsory  enactments,  but  not 
those  internal  determinations  of  the  life,  which  form  the  essence  of  true 
piety — these  proceed  of  themselves,  in  the  believer,  from  the  new  anima- 
tion by  the  Divine  Spirit — the  Christian  virtues  are  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  and  those  in  whom  these  qualities,  unattainable  by  the  aid  of 
the  law  alone,  are  formed,  are  even  thereby  exalted  above  the  stand- 

*  The  being  dead  to  the  law,  Rom.  vii.  4,  and  Gal.  ii.  19,  the  removal  of  the  law  in  its 
whole  extent,  Colos.  ii.  14;  for  "the  handwriting  of  ordinances,"  which  Christ  nailed  to  his 
cross,  is  manifestly  the  law,  and  in  this  particular  passage  it  is  safer  to  suppose  the  moral 
requirements  of  the  law  to  be  meant,  since  it  was  precisely  because  no  one  was  able  to 
keep  the  law,  that  it  was  a  "  handwriting"  "  which  was  agaiust  us,  which  was  contrary  to 
us."  It  would  accordingly  be  altogether  consonant  with  the  Pauline  views,  to  understand 
the  figurative  expression  in  Rom.  vii.  2,  of  the  deadness  of  the  law  itself,  (namely,  this  law 
in  its  outward  theocratic  form,)  though  other  exegetical  reasons  might  oppose  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage  in  Colos.  ii.  14. 

|  The  "righteousness  of  God,"  diKaioavvrj  deov, — opposed  to  the  fimaioovv?/  dvdpunivti, 
\6la,  £\J  epyuv,  e£  epyuv  vofinv — "  without  the  law,"  xuP^C  vop.ov  ;   Rom.  iii.  21. 

\  The  "works  of  the  law,"  epya  vo/iov,  which  are  not  "good  works,'1    epya  dyadii. 


424 


THE   JEWISH    NOMOS. 


point  of  the  law  which  as  a  dead  letter  opposes  the  principle  of  corrup- 
tion prevailing  within.*  But  it  by  no  means  contradicts  this  relation  of 
the  law  to  the  life  of  the  believer,  that  Paul  sometimes  brings  forward 
moral  precepts  as  quotations  from  the  law,  (vo/zoc,)  for  he  considers  the 
Mosaic  law  as  an  expression  of  the  -eternal  law  of  God  in  a  particular, 
temporary  form,  adapted  to  a  particular,  outward  Theocracy,  in  which 
the  civil  arrangements  were  externally  subordinated  to  the  religious,  and 
hence  both  were  intermixed.f  The  whole  substance  of  the  eternal  law 
of  God  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  vo/iog,  though  according  to  views  before 
stated  it  was  presented  in  the  form  of  a  theocratic  national  law,  which 
che.cked  its  free  and  complete  development.  The  obligatory  force  of  the 
commands  borrowed  from  the  vo\ioq  by  Paul,  therefore,  does  not  consist 
in  their  belonging  to  that  vofLog,  but  that  they  formed  a  part  of  the  eter- 
nal law,  from  which  they  were  transferred  to  the  peculiar  form  presented 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  inner  meaning  of  this  eternal  law  to  which 
the  moral  consciousness  of  men  bears  witness,  is  divested  of  its  national 
garb,;);  by  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  developed  with  greater  clearness 
by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  when  in  Rom.  xiii.  8,  he  ap- 
peals to  the  one  command  of  love  belonging  to  the  law,  he  marks  ex- 
actly the  difference  between  the  Christian  position  and  the  legal ;  for  if 
the  spirit  of  love  animates  believers,  and  with  love  is  given  the  fulfilment 
of  the  whole  law,  it  follows  that  the  law  is  no  longer  for  them  a  com- 
pulsory, death-producing  letter ;  and  here  is  exemplified  the  truth  of 
Christ's  assertion  that  he  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil  the  law. 

Though  the  idea  of  the  law  in  that  narrower  sense,  forms  the  dis- 
tinctive mark  between  Judaism  and  the  Gospel,  still  there  is  no  incon- 
sistency in  applying  the  term§  in  a  wider  sense,  to  denote  the  common 
relation  in  which  both  religions  stand  to  the  life  of  man||  Both  re- 
ligions aim  at  a  control  over  the  life,  and  give  a  peculiar  character  to  it. 
Legal  Judaism  aims  at  producing  this  by  literal  commands  from  with- 
out ;  Christianity  aims  at  forming  it  from  within  through  faith,  and  the 
spirit  that  proceeds  from  it.     In  the  former  case,  the  law  is  outward;  in 

*  See  Gal.  v.  22,  23.  It  is  worth  while  to  compare  what  Aristotle  says  in  his  Politics, 
iii.  13,  that  an  individual  cannot  belong  to  a  State  as  a  member,  if  by  his  preeminence  he 
is  raised  above  the  whole  body ;  for  such  an  one  is  like  a  god  in  his  relations  to  men : 
uoTzep  yup  Oebv  uvOpuTroIc  eUbc  dvai  rbv  tocovtov.  The  laws  aie  not  for  such  persons; 
the}'  are  a  law  themselves  :  /card  Si  tuv  toiovtuv  ovk  tart  vo/ivc'  aurol  yup  elat.  vo/iog. 
Hence  ostracism  in  States  that  would  endure  no  inequality.  A  remarkable  prophecy  for 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  Christianity! 

+  Compare  remarks  above,  p.  421. 

\  To  this  release  of  the  spirit  confined  in  this  garb,  to  the  inward  as  contrasted  with 
the  outward  theocratic  law,  we  must  refer  the  antithetical  expressions  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  which  certainly  are  directed  not  merely  against  the  Pharisaic  expositions,  but 
also  against  the  letter  of  the  law  in  its  theocratic  national  form.  See  Life  of  Christ,  223, 
231. 

§  I  cannot  agree  with  those  expositors  who  think  that,  when  Paul  describes  Chrifr 
tianity  as  a  vo/wc,  the  general  idea  of  law  must  be  altogether  given  up. 

|  See  above,  p.  401. 


HOW   FAR   CHRISTIANITY   IS   A   N0M07.  425 

the  latter,  it  is  inward,  such  a  law  as  dwells  in  the  new  life  itself,  just  as 
in  every  particular  essence  the  law  of  its  own  peculiar  course  of  develop 
ment  is  inborn.*  In  reference  to  these  various  uses  of  the  term  law,  Paul 
endeavors  to  guard  against  the  misconception  that  because  Christians  no 
longer  live  wider  the  law,  they  are  in  a  lawless  state;  1  Cor.  ix.  21. 
They  have  still  a  law,  the  law  of  God,  the  law  of  Christ,  not  merely  out- 
ward, but  inward,  entering  into  the  very  essence  of  the  Christian  life  ; 
and  this  distinction  is  marked  by  the  phrases  living  under  the  law,  and 
in  the  law.  Heiice  also  Christianity  contrasted  with  Judaism  is  called  a 
law,  and  in  explanation  of  the  term  so  applied,  we  find  accompanying 
terms  such  as  "  law  of  faith,"  "  law  of  life,"  "law  of  the  spirit,"  (vonog 
moreiog,  vofiog  £w//f,  vo\io<;  rrvevfiarot;.) 

The  different  relations  of  the  two  theocratic  points  of  view  are  clearly 
connected  with  the  different  applications  of  the  idea  of  law  ;  the  out- 
ward conception  of  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  with  the  outward 
conception  of  the  idea  of  law,  and  with  the  inward  conception  of  that 
idea  of  law  the  idea  of  the  Theocracy,  as  not  outwardly  constituted  but 
developing  itself  from  within  ;  and  thus  throughout  we  meet  with  the 
contrast  of  the  inward  and  the  outward.  On  the  legal  Jewish  stand- 
point, there  was  an  outward  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  the  outward 
observance  of  the  divine  commands,  without  the  opposition  between  the 
human  and  divine  commands  being  taken  away  ;  the  serving  God  in  the 
oldness  of  the  letter,  (dovXevetv  deu>  ev  ixaXaLOTryn  ypdiJ-fiarog,)  in  the  old 
state  of  a  nature  estranged  from  God,  of  which  nothing  can  be  altered 
from  without  by  the  mere  letter  of  the  command.  To  the  believer,  the 
Sovkeia  is  inward,  so  that  in  the  new  state,  by  virtue  of  the  inward  reno- 
vation which  proceeds  from  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  the  sancti- 
fied will  determines  itself  in  dependence  on  God,  it  is  a  servant  of  God 
(dovXeveiv  ev  Kaivorryri  irvevfiarog.)  Hence  "  service,"  dovXeia,  in  the 
latter  sense,  is  voluntary  and  one  with  true  freedom;  1  Cor.  vii.  22. 
AovXeia  in  the  first  sense,  forms  a  contrast  to  the  freedom  of  the  children 
of  God  ;  on  the  contrary,  dovXeia  in  the  second  sense,  cannot  exist  with- 
out "  adoption,"  vlodeota,  and  is  at  once  a  consequence  and  a  mark  of  it, 
for  what  distinguishes  the  children  from  the  servants  of  the  family  is 
this,  that  they  do  not  obey  their  father's  will,  as  foreign  to  themselves, 
but  make  it  their  own;  dependence  on  him  is,  as  it  were,  the  natural 
element  of  their  life.  That  merely  outward  servitude  to  which  there  is 
a  continuous  inward  opposition,  proceeds  from  the  spirit  of  fear,  the 
special  characteristic  of  servitude  ;  this  inward  service  proceeds  from  the 
consciousness  of  communion  with  God  obtained  through  Christ  the  Son 

*  By  Christianity  or  Regeneration,  goodness  is  again  communicated  to  tlie  very  nature 
of  man,  and  thus  the  moral  law  becomes  a  higher  law  of  nature  appropriated  with  freedom. 
"We  may  here  apply  what  Schleiermacher  says  in  his  Academical  Essay,  1825,  on  the  differ- 
ence between  the  law  of  nature  and  the  moral  law,  without  adopting  the  views  of  the 
venerated  author  respecting  the  relation  of  the  law  to  the  deviations  from  it,  and  in  general 
the  relation  of  the  law  to  freedom  as  viewod  from  an  ethical  point  of  view. 


426  THE    STATES    OF  BONDAGE   AND    ADOPTION. 

of  God,  and  of  participation  in  his  Spirit,  the  spirit  of  childlike  relation 
to  God,  the  spirit  of  adoption  and  of  lo\e.  The  Spirit  of  the  Son,  the 
Spirit  whose  entire  fulness  is  in  the  Son,  and  who  goes  forth  from  the 
Son  upon  all  standing  in  fellowship  with  him,  this  Spirit,  through  whom 
Ave  enter  into  the  same  relation  to  God  as  the  Son,  communicates  the 
consciousness  that,  in  fellowship  with  him  who  is  the  absolute  Son  ol 
God,  we  have  become  and  are  the  children  of  God.  The  Spirit  of  the 
Son  exhibits  itself  as  the  spirit  of  Sonship  in  all  who  have  part  in  it. 
Rom.  viii.  15  ;  Gal.  iv.  6. 

So  likewise  the  worship  of  God  in  the  spirit  of  Legalism*  was  an 
outward  worship  (oapnutrj,  Kara  odpica,  by  means  of  epya  oapKwa)  con- 
sisting in  single  outward  acts,f   confined  to  certain  times  and  places. 

*  This  is  true  of  the  legal-moral,  as  well  as  of  the  legal-ritual  cult.u^. 

f  Connected  with  the  being  "  in  bondage  under  the  elements  of  the  world,"  6e6ovl£>(jdai 
inh  ru  aroixda  tov  noafiov.  We  wish  to  offer  a  few  remarks  in  vindication  and  conlirmation 
of  the  interpretation  of  this  expression  given  above,  (see  also  p.  401,  compare  p.  297  n.)  and 
against  the  common  one  of  oToixtia  as  "the  first  principles  of  religious  knowledge  among 
men."  If  the  word  aToixela  meant  ,:  first  principles,"  we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  in 
the  genitive  connected  with  it,  the  designation  of  the  object  to  which  these  first  principles 
relate,  as  is  actually  done  in  Hebrews  v.  12,  "the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,"  rti 
arotxda  t?jc  upxvi  tuv  loyluv  tov  deov.  But  in  the  Pauline  passages,  such  a  genitive  of 
the  object  is  everywhere  wanting,  and  we  find,  instead,  only  a  genitive  of  the  subject.  The 
omission  of  the  express  mention  of  such  a  leading  idea  can  hardly  be  admitted.  Paul,  in 
Gal.  iv.  8,  plainly  addressing  those  who  had  formerly  been  heathens,  supposes  that,  before 
their  conversion,  they  had  been  in  bondage  to  these  elements  of  the  world,  if  we  do  not 
have  recourse  to  an  arbitrary  interpretation  of  ttu2.iv.  According  to  the  common  interpre- 
tation, we  must  suppose  that  Paul,  by  the  first  elements  of  religious  knowledge,  intended 
to  mark  a  universal  idea,  in  a  certain  degree  applicable  alike  to  both  Heathenism  and  Juda- 
ism. But  how  could  this  agree  with  the  views  of  Paul,  who  recognised  Judaism,  as  sub- 
ordinate and  preparative  it  is  true,  but  yet  a  position  in  religion  founded  on  Divine 
Revelation,  and  who,  on  the  other  hand,  saw  in  heathenism  as  such,  that  is,  in  idolatry,  of 
which  he  here  speaks,  not  a  subordinate  religious  position,  but  something  entirely  foreign 
to  the  nature  of  religion,  a  suppression  through  sin  of  the  original  knowledge  of  God  ? 
Neither  does  the  predicate  "  weak,"  datiei'i],  appear  suitable  to  the  idea  of  the  first  princi- 
ples of  religion.  On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  interpretalion  I  have  proposed,  all  is 
consistent.  The  confinement  of  religion  to  sensuous  forms,  and  therefore  its  euthralment 
by  the  elements  of  the  world,  is  common  to  Judaism  and  Heathenism.  All  idolatry  may 
be  considered  as  a  bondage  and  submission  to  the  elements  of  sense,  and  a  kind  of  idolatry 
may  bo  attributed  to  the  Jews  and  Judaizers,  who  sought  for  the  divine,  for  justification 
and  sauclification,  in  external  rites.  This  will  make  it  evident  how  Paul  could  say  to  the 
Galatian  Christians,  once  heathens,  who  were  iufected  with  this  Judaism  (Gal.  iv.  8), 
"  How  can  ye.  who  by  the  divine  mercy  have  been  led  to  the  knowledge  of  God  and  com- 
munion with  him  (in  which  interpretation  I  by  no  means  assume  a  hophalic  sense  in  the 
word  yvuadEvrec,  as  TJsteri,  lately  deceased,  has  understood  me  to  do;  but,  just  as  he  has 
done,  I  understand  the  word  in  a  pregnant  sense,)  turn  back  again  to  the  weak  and  beg- 
garly elements  (a  suitable  description  of  them,  in  reference  to  persons  who  sought  to  find 
in  them  what  the  power  of  God  alone  could  bestow),  to  which  ye  desire  to  bring  yourselves 
again  in  bondage?  (You  willingly  plunge  yourselves  back  again  into  your  old  idolatry.) 
I  fear  that  I  have  indeed  labored  in  vaic  to  turn  you  from  idolatry  to  the  worship  of  the 
living  God."  It  is  quite  impossible  to  join  together  both  significations  of  the  word  otol- 
Xtta  as  Baur  has  done,  p.  595.     If  Dr.  Baur  had  fully  understood  the  connexion  of  my 


SPIRITUAL   WORSHIP.  427 

Worship,  on  the  principle  of  faith  on  the  contrary,  is  "  spiritual,"  nvevpa- 
TiKrj,  since  it  proceeds  from  the  in  working  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  is 
completed  by  the  Spirit,  Philip,  iii.  3  ;  hence  it  does  not  relate  to  certain 
isolated  acts,  but  embraces  the  whole  life;  Rom.  xii.  1.  On  the  legal 
principle,  men  placed  their  confidence  and  pride  in  something  human  and 
earthly,  whatever  it  might  be,  whether  descent  from  the  theocratic  na- 
tion, or  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  or  ascetic  self-denial  and  mortifica- 
tion of  the  flesh,  the  Kara  oapua  aavxdodai,  'ev  oapiti  Trenotdevcu*  But 
on  the  principle  "of  faith,  after  acknowledging  the  nullity  of  all  such  dis- 
tinctions, of  all  human  works  of  righteousness,  men  place  their  confidence 
and  glory  only  in  the  redemption  obtained  through  Christ ;  only  in  that 
which  as  believers  all  have  in  like  manner  received  from  Christ,  and  are 
conscious  of  possessing  in  fellowship  with  him ;  the  ev  Kvpico  Kavxaodai. 
Here, all  imaginary  distinctions,  all  differences  vanish,  which  before  sep- 
arated men  from  one  another,  and  checked  their  fellowship  in  the  highest 
relation  of  life;  everything  human  is  henceforth  subordinated  to  the  one 
spirit  of  Christ,  the  common  principle  of  life;  Gal.  iii.  28.  The  only 
universal  and  constantly  available  principle  of  Christian  worship  which 
embraces  the  whole  life,  is  faith  in  Christ  working  by  love ;  Gal.  v.  6. 

Now,  in  faith  is  given  at  once  the  principle  of  that  whole  transforma- 
tion of  the  life  which  proceeds  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ ;  through  one  act 
of  the  Spirit  man  by  means  of  faith  dies  to  the  former  sinful  life,  and 
rises  to  a  new  life  of  communion  with  Christ.  The  old  man  is  slain  once 
for  all ;  Rom.  vi.  4-0  ;  Coloss.  iii.  3.  'Paul  assumes  that  in  Christians, 
the  act  by  virtue  of  which  they  are  dead  to  sin  and  have  crucified  the 
flesh  with  its  affections  and  lusts,  is  already  accomplished  ideally  in  prin- 

ideas,  he  would  not  have  made  his  reproaches  in  p.  595.  I  find  no  difficulty  whatever  in 
Paul's  sometimes  placing  Heathenism  on  a  level  with  Judaism,  and  sometimes  below  it. 
This  is  the  case  with  my  own  view,  nor  do  I  need  Dr.  Baur's  instructions  on  that  point. 
But  this  I  have  felt  to  bo  a  difficulty,  that  Judaism  as  the  groundwork  of  religious  devel- 
opment given  by  God,  should  be  compared  with  Heathenism.  And  certainly  there  is  a 
logical  distinction  between  the  two  explanations.  The  being  in  bondage  to  the  elements 
of  the  world, — the  dependence  of  the  human  mind  on  nature,  the  externalizing  of  relig- 
ious service— this  formed  the  common  error  before  the  existence  of  Christianity,  and  was 
first  taken  away  by  its  influence.  This  is  the  condition  of  sin  through  which  man  has  be- 
come the  slave  of  nature.  This  is  nothing  caused  by  God.  Hence  in  Heathenism  arose 
the  deification  of  nature,  idolatry.  The  Jews,  through  the  prevalence  of  Divine  Revela- 
tion among  them,  were  preserved  from  such  a  sinking  under  tne  dominion  of  nature;  but  Di 
vine  Revelation  itself,  in  the  education  of  the  theocratic  people,  condescended  to  this  condi- 
tion of  humanity,  above  which  humanity  can  only  be  raised  by  redemption,  and  Theism 
itself  has  adopted  this  mode  of  employing  nature  and  external  things ;  Theism  in  sensuous 
forms.  Here  then,  with  what  is  common,  is  also  a  contrariety.  But  it  is  altogether  a  dif- 
ferent matter,  if  in  reference  to  a  divine  education  of  man,  I  placed  Judaism  and  Heathen- 
ism on  a  level  with  one  another  as  constituting  the  rudiments  of  religious  knowledge. 
This  I  cannot  help  considering  as  something  altogether  un-Pauline. 

*  According  to  Paul's  views,  this  will  apply  to  the  overvaluation  of  what  is  human  in 
every  form  and  relation;  as,  fo>-  instance,  the  Grecian  culture  and  philosophy;  see  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  CoriDthiana. 


428  PREDOMINANCE    OF   THE   IINEYMA. 

ciple.  Hence  he  concludes,  how  can  they  who  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein  ?  How  can  they  who  have  crucified  the  flesh  still  allow  it 
to  rule  over  them?  Rom.  vi.  2;  Gal.  v.  24.  But  the  practice  must  cor- 
respond to  the  principle ;  the  outward  conformation  of  the  life  must  har- 
monize with  the  tendency  given  to  the  inward  life.  Walking  in  the 
Spirit  must  necessarily  proceed  from  living  in  the  Spirit ;  Gal.  v.  25  ;  the 
former  must  be  a  manifestation  of  the  latter.  Hence  Christians  are 
always  required  to  renew  the  mortification  of  the  flesh,  to  walk  after  the 
Spirit,  to  let  themselves  be  animated  by  the  Spirit.  The  transformation 
of  the  old  nature  in  man  which  proceeds  from  the  divine  principle  of  life 
received  by  faith,  is  not  completed  in  an  instant,  but  can  only  be  attained 
gradually  by  conflict  with  sin ;  for  the  renewed  as  well  as  the  old  nature 
consists  of  two  principles,  the  "spirit"  and  the  "flesh,"  only  with  this 
difference,  that  no  longer  (as  Paul  represents  the  state  of  the  natural  man 
in  Rom.  vii.)  the  human  self  with  its  powerless  desires  after  goodness  op- 
poses the  principle  of  sinfulness,  the  oap$,  but  instead  of  the  human  self, 
there  is  the  divine  principle  of  life  which  has  become  the  animating  one 
of  human  nature,  the  irvevfxa  delov,  aywv,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  Christ 
himself  by  his  Spirit ;  Gal.  ii.  20.  Hence  it  is  not  said  from  this  point 
of  view, that  the  Spirit  wishes  to  do  good  but  is  hindered  by  the  flesh 
from  accomplishing  its  wishes,  so  that  the  flesh  is  the  vital  principle  of 
action  ;  but  it  is  enjoined  on  those  who  have  received  the  divine  principle 
of  life,  Gal.  v.  16,  "  Walk  in  the  Spirit,*  so  shall  ye  not  fulfil  the  desires 
of  the  flesh  ;  for  the  Spirit  nnd  the  flesh  conflict  with  one  another,  so  that 
you  must  distinguish  what  proceeds  from  the  Spirit  and  what  from  the 
flesh,  and  you  must  not  fulfil  what  you  desire  according  to  the  carnal  self, 


*  I  cannot  agree  with  Riickert,  in  referring  the  "spirit,"  nveifin,  here  spoken  of,  not  to 
the  Spirit  of  God,  but  to  the  higher  nature  of  man.  Certainly  the  word  nveifia  in  this 
whole  chapter  is  to  be  understood  only  in  one  sense,  and  taking  everything  into  account, 
the  idea  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  one  which  suits  Paul's  meaning;  as,  for  example, 
in  v.  18.  And  generally  in  this  epistle,  the  same  idea  of  the  Spirit  is  to  be  firmly  held. 
Versa  17  contains  no  proof  to  the  contrary;  for  Paul  here  assumes,  that  the  Spirit  has 
pervaded  the  distinctive  nature  of  man,  that  the  new  principle  of  life  has  taken  possession 
of  human  nature,  and  given  it  a  new  and  peculiar  vitality.  He  wishes  to  mark  the  new 
higher  principle  that  is  now  the  antagonist  of  the  "  flesh"  in  man.  Men  may  with  the 
strictest  propriety  be  called  upon  to  surrender  themselves  to  this  higher  principle,  to  allow 
themselves  to  be  led  by  it,  according  to  its  impulses,  for  Paul  considered  the  operation  of 
the  Divine  Spirit  in  man,  not  as  something  magical,  but  constantly  assumes  the  working 
together  of  the  divine  and  the  human.  It  is  perfectly  true  that,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine, 
the  higher  nature  in  man,  the  capability  of  knowing  God,  which  before  was  confined  and 
depressed,  is  set  at  liberty  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  now  serves  as  the  organ  for  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  human  nature,  and  hence,  that  as  this  higher  nature  of  man 
can  now  operate  in  its  freedom  as  the  organ  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  so  the  latter  can  now 
operate  in  man  by  means  of  this  organ,  and  hence  the  two  are  blended  together  in  the 
Christian  life.  But  whon  Paul  wishes  to  infuse  courage  and  confidence  for  the  spiritual 
conflict,  he  directs  the  attention,  not  to  what  is  subjectively  human,  but  to  the  almighty 
power  of  God. 


CONVERSION   OF   NATURAL   TALENTS    INTO   CTIARISMS.  429 

but  what  the  Spirit  within  you  desires."*  This  marks  the  contrast  to  the 
state  described  in  Rom.  vii.  15.  Accordingly,  the  divine  life  in  the  inner 
man  must  be  in  continual  conflict  with  the  after  operations  of  the  flesh, 
and  progressively  convert  the  body,  hitherto  under  the  control  of  sinful 
habits,  into  an  organ  for  itself,  (Rom.  vi.  11-13),  so  that  the  "members 
of  the  body,"  fisXi]  tov  o&fiaTog,  become  "instruments  of  righteousness," 
orrAa  diKaioovv7]g;  all  the  powers  and  faculties  which  hitherto  have  been 
in  the  service  of  sin,  being  appropriated  and  sanctified  by  the  divine  life, 
are  employed  as  organs  of  grace  for  the  service  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
and  here  the  doctrine  of  chai  isms  finds  its  point  of  connexion  ;  (ante, 
pp.  136-140).  All  the  peculiar  capabilities  or  talents  founded  in  the 
nature  of  each  individual,  are  to  be  transformed  into  charisms  and  em- 
ployed as  such. 

And  it  is  the  province  of  Christian  Morals  to  show  in  what  manner 
human  nature  must  be  pervaded  in  all  its  powers  by  the  higher  principle 
of  life,  and  appropriated  as  an  organ  of  its  manifestation  ;  how  all  hu 
man  relations,  set  at  liberty  from  the  principle  of  sin  which  has  hitherto 
prevailed  among  them  and  hindered  the  realization  of  their  design,  are  to 
be  referred  to  the  kingdom  of  God  in  which  their  design  shall  be  ful- 
filled ;  and  how  what  is  individual  belonging  to  the  representation  of  the 
image  of  God  in  man  is  not  suppressed  and  annihilated,  but  is  to  be 
transformed  and  elevated  to  a  peculiar  conformation  and  manifestation 
of  the  higher  principle  of  life,  that  the  one  Christ,  the  Heavenly  Man, 
may  give  proper  form  to  the  diversified  peculiarities  that  serve  for  hi? 
organ. 

We  here  see  the  difference  between  Christian  .principle  as  Paul  repre- 
sents it,  and  a  one-sided  ascetic  direction  in  morals.  Paul  brings  forward 
as  one  side  in  the  process  of  the  development  of  the  Christian  life,  the 
negative  operation,  to  mortify  the  principle  of  sin  which  has'  hitherto 
reigned  in  the  body,  Rom.  viii.  13,  to  mortify  the  members  as  far  as  they 
serve  sin,  Coloss.  iii.  5  ;f  but  this  is  only  one  side.     The  other  is  the  pos- 

*  This  passage,  in  my  opinion,  cannot  be  understood  otherwise  than  in  this  manner, 
though  later  expositors  have  given  a  different  interpretation.  It  has  been  supposed  to 
mean,  "  So  that  ye  cannot  accomplish  what  you  desire  according  to  the  spirit ;  ye  are  un- 
able to  follow  the  dictates  of  the  better  will ;" — and  yet  should  these  words  be  referred  to 
the  state  of  the  regenerate,  this  would  form  a  singular  ground  of  exhortation  for  following 
the  leadings  of  the  Spirit,  and  for  withstanding  the  flesh,  if  Paul  said  to  them  that  they 
were  prevented  from  obeying  the  good  promptings-which  proceeded  from  the  Spirit  by  the 
prevalence  of  the  flesh.  But  if  it  is  understood  of  the  condition  of  the  natural  man,  and 
v.  18  is  considered  as  a  contrast,  we  do  not  see  now  Paul,  who  had  before  addressed  those 
whom  he  assumed  to  be  Christians,  could  make  such  a  sudden  transition  to  a  different  class 
of  persons.  The  correspondence  of  the  last  words  of  v.  17,  with  the  last  words  of  the 
foregoing  verse,  proves  that  the  "  will "  here  answers  to  the  desires  of  the  flesh,  a  fleshly 
will  is  described  by  them,  just  as  in  the  pneumatic  or  spiritual  will,  it  is  no  longer  the 
former  "  I "  of  the  individual,  but  the  man-inspiring  Christ,  the  nvev/ia  that  forms  the 
volitionary  principle. 

f  The  "  members  which  are  upon  the  earth,"  fieXrj  Im  rr/(  y%{,  which  belong  to  a 
<sarnal,  earthly  course  of  life,  are  directly  opposed  to  the  heavenly  mind  in  v.  2. 


430 


JUSTIFICATION    AND    SANCTIFICATION. 


itive  operation,  the  positive  appropriation,  that  as  believers  are  now  dead 
with  Christ  to  sin,  the  world,  and  themselves,  so  now  they  lead  a  new 
divine  life,  increasingly  devoted  to  him ;  the  Spirit  of  Christ  that  dwells 
in  them  constantly  animates  their  bodies  afresh  as  his  organ,  Rom.  viii. 
11,  ff.,  so  that  the  "  members"  consecrated  to  God,  are  employed  in  his 
service,  according  to  (he  station  God  has  indicated  to  each  individual,  as 
"  instruments  of  righteousness."  As  the  "  Holy  Spirit,"  nvevfia  ayiov,  is 
the  common  vital  principle  of  all  believers,  the  animating  Spirit  of  the 
church  of  God,  so  the  diversity  of  the  form  in  which  he  operates  in  and 
through  each  individual,  varied  by  their  sanctified  peculiarities  and  char- 
acteristics, is  designated  by  the  term  charism  or  gift. 

But  since  this  appropiiation  and  pervasion  of  the  old  nature  is  a  con- 
tinual conflict,  and  the  further  a  man  advances  in  holiness  the  more  capa- 
ble he  is  rendered  by  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  distinguishing 
what  proceeds  from  the  Spirit  and  what  from  the  flesh,  and  of  discerning 
all  the  disturbing  influences  of  the  latter,  therefore  the  distinction  between 
objective  justification  and  subjective  sanctification  is  always  necessary, 
in  order  that  the  confidence  of  man  may  not  be  wavering,  as  it  must  be 
if  he  looks  only  to  himself,  Philip,  iii.  12,  but  may  maintain  its  firm  un- 
changeable ground,  by  being  fixed  on  the  objective,  the  grace  of  redemp- 
tion, the  love  of  Christ,  from  which  no  power  of  hell  can  separate  the 
redeemed;  Rom.  viii.  31,  32.  In  the  Pauline  idea  of  the  justification 
and  righteousness  available  before  God,  which  is  granted  to  man  by  the 
redeeming  grace  of  God,  and  appropriated  by  faith,  the  objective  is 
always  primary  and  predominant.  At  the  same  time  something  subject- 
ive is  imparted  with  it,  something  new  is  deposited  in  the  inner  life  which 
must  be  pr-ogressively  developed ;  the  righteousness  of  Christ  appropri- 
ated by  faith,  is  actually  transferred  to  the  inner  life  of  the  believer,  and 
becomes  a  new  principle,  forming  the  life  according  to  the  example  of 
Christ.*  And  when  this  process  of  development  shall  be  completed, 
believers  will  attain  to  the  possession  of  an  eternal,  divine,  and  blessed  ' 
life,  inseparable  from  perfect  righteousness ;  and  then  the  objective  idea 
of  justification  will  be  wholly  transferred  to  the  subjective,  Rom.  v.  19-21 ; 
but  till  this  is  accomplished,  in  order,  as  we  have  before  said,  to  lay  a 
firm  foundation  for  the  confidence  of  the  soul,  it  is  always  necessary, 
while  conceiving  both  ideas  according  to  their  essential  and  ultimate 
connexion,  still  to  keep  in  mind  their  distinction  from  one  another. 

Since  the  whole  Christian  disposition  is  produced  from  faith,  and 
thereby  the  whole  life  is  determined  and  formed,  the  term  faith  has  been 
employed  to  designate  the  whole  of  the  Christian  disposition  and  of 
Christian  ability. f    Thus  the  predicate  tivvarog  rig  nlarei,  (strong  in  faith), 

*  The  scholastic  expression,  "  Justitia  Christi  perfidem  habet  esse  in  ammo,"  perfectly 
corresponds  to  Paul's  meaning. 

\  Hence  the  measure  of  faith  as  the  measure  of  Christian  ability,  and  the  measure  of 
grace  bestowed  on  each  individual,  are  correlative  ideas.  Rom.  xii.  3.  Christians  are 
only  to  aim  at  rightly  applying  the  measure  of  ability  they  have  received  ;  to  do  every- 


THE  STRONG  IN  FAITH.  431 

designates  the  poivit  of  view,  where  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  confidence  in 
the  justification  obtained  through  him,  has  become  to  such  a  degree  the 
animating  principle  of  the  convictions,  and  has  so  pervaded  the  whole 
tone  of  thinking,  that  a  man  is  enabled  to  judge  and  act  in  all  the  rela- 
tions of  life  according  to  it,  that  he  cannot  be  disturbed,  as  he  otherwise 
would  be,  by  any  foreign  element  of  other  views  which  formerly  influ- 
enced him.  The  after- workings  of  the  earlier  religious  convictions  no 
longer  exercise  over  the  conscience  of  such  an'  one  any  kind  of  power. 
This  is  specially  true  of  the  relations  of  Christianity  to  Judaism,  which, 
cilice  it,  above  all  other  agencies,  had  furnished  a  preparatory  transi- 
tion point,  could  longer  than  any  other  exercise  its  influence  over  one  who 
from  it  had  attained  to  faith,  so  that  such  a  person  would  only  by  degrees 
free  himself  from  its  influences  on  his  judgment  of  all  the  relations  of 
life ;  as  the  new  Christian  principle  proceeding  from  faith  in  the  Re- 
deemer gradually  impregnated  his  whole  mode  of  thinking.  This  power 
of  faith  over  the  judgment  is  shown,  for  example,  in  this,  that  a  man, 
certain  of  his  salvation  in  fellowship  with  the  Redeemer,  will  no  longer 
allow  himself  to  be  agitated  by  scruples  in  the  use  of  outward  things, 
with  which  he  had  previously  been  disturbed  in  the  Jewish  religion,  as 
if  this  or  that  thing  could  defile  him.  So  we  are  to  understand  what 
Paul  says,  Rom.  xiv.  2,"  one  believeth  that  he  may  eat  all  things," 
i.  e.,  is  strong  enough  in  faith  to  eat  all  things,  og  jxev  morevet  (payelv 
Trdvra,  i.  e.  dvvarog  Ion  rfj  irtOTei,  ware  (payelv  irdvra  •  he  can  no 
longer  be  perplexed  by  a  mixture  of  scruples  arising  from  his  earlier 
legalism.  The  being  "  weak  in  the  faith,"  dadevelv  ffj  niarei,  forms  the 
opposite  to  this  strength  of  faith,  in  which,  along  with  faith,  another  ele- 
ment arising  from  the  former  point  of  view  controlled  the  convictions, 
and  hence  the  internal  strife  between  the  principle  founded  in  Christian 
conviction,  or  niartg,  and  the  doubts  that  rebelled  against  it ;  Rom.  xiv.  1. 
Though  Paul  took  occasion  from  existing  relations  to  develop  his  views 
on  this  subject  with  a  special  reference  to  the  Jewish  law,  yet  they  would 
apply  to  the  relation  subsisting  between  any  other  point  of  view  and.  the 
Christian,  or  that  of  the  righteousness  by  faith.  The  power  of  faith, 
governing  the  life,  gives  an  independence  and  stability  to  the  Christian 
character,  imparts  strength  and  freedom  to  the  mind.  This  it  is  that 
forms  the  basis  of  Christian  freedom,  which  consists  in  this,  that  the 
Christian,  since  he  has  devoted  his  whole  life  to  Christ  as  his  Redeemer, 
and  through  him  to  God,  since  he  is  animated  only  by  the  consciousness 
of  this  dependence  and  acknowledges  no  other, — for  this  reason,  feels 
independent  of  all  created  beings,  of  all  earthly  things ;  hence,  he  acts  in 
the  consciousness  of  this  independence,  is  master  of  all  things  by  the  ani- 
mating Spirit  of  Christ,  and  is  in  bondage  to  no  man,  to  no  circumstan- 
ces; nothing  can  so  operate  upon  him  as  tc  determine  him  to  a  different 

thing  according  to  its  proportion  ;  Rom.  xii.  6.  They  are  not  to  indulge  conceit,  or  tc 
pass  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own  true  position. 


432  THE   STRONG   IN"  FAITH. 

course  from  that  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  for  this  is  the  great 
determining  principle  of  his  life;  1  Cor.  vii.  21,  ff;  1  Cor.  vi.  12  ;*  1  Cor.- 
iii.  22.  While  the  Christian,  as  an  organ  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  has 
won  the  government  of  the  world,  to  whom  at  last  all  things  must  be 
subject,  is  free  from  the  world  and  everything  belonging  to  it,  from  all 
power  of  created  beings,  he  likewise  in  spirit  rules  over  all  things.  Free- 
dom and  mastery  over  the  world  here  meet.  This  freedom  and  this  mas- 
tery over  the  world,  proceeding  from  faith  (like  everything  Christian), 
and  grounded  in  the  depths  of  the  soul,  can  hence  manifest  themselves 
under  all  outward  restrictions,  and  evince  their  power  by  the  fact  that 
these  outward  restrictions  for  the  spirit,  which  is  exalted  above  them  and 
in  the  consciousness  of  faith  feels  itself  independent  of  everything,  cease 
to  be  restrictive,  and  are  included  in  his  free  self-determination  and  mas- 
tery over  the  world.  Paul  proves  his  Christian  freedom  precisely  in  this 
manner,  that  for  the  good  of  others,  and  in  order  to  make  everything 
subservient  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  so  acted  in  all  things  as  would  best 
contribute  to  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  thus  freely 
submitted  to  all  the  forms  of  dependence.  Free  from  all,  he  made  him- 
self the  servant  of  all ;  having  the  mastery  over  all,  he  submitted  to  all 
the  forms  of  dependence  ordained  by  God,  and  in  doing  so,  exercised 
his  mastery  over  the  world  ;   1  Cor.  ix.  1-19. 

It  is  evident  that  nothing  can  be  excepted  from  this  reference  of  the 
whole  life  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  for  the  Christian  disposition  proceed- 
ing from  faith,  and  referring  everything  to  God's  glory,  is  the  great  ar- 
bitrator in  all  the  events  of  life.  Accordingly,  there  can  be  no  empty 
space  for  things  indifferent  of  which  Christian  principle  takes  no  cogni- 
sance, nothing  belonging  to  human  nature  which  does  not  receive  a  moral 
impress  from  Christian  principle,  as  Paul  expressly  says,  "  Whether  ye 
eat,  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God,"  1  Cor.  x. 
31.  It  may  appear  to  contradict  this  principle,  by  which  the  whole  of 
life  becomes  one  great  duty,  and  no  room  is  left  for  anything  indifferent, 
that  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  vi.  12,  x.  23,  distinguishes  from  the  province  of  the 
lawful,  that  which  is  useful  or  serves  for  edification ;  but  the  contradic- 
tion is  only  in  appearance,  and  will  vanish  on  a  more  exact  unfolding  of 
the  apostle's  views.  It  could  only  contradict  the  principle  in  question, 
if  Paul  had  reckoned  what  did  not  contribute  to  edification  as  still  be- 
longing to  what  was  lawful  on  Christian  grounds,  or  if  he  had  not  con- 
sidered what  contributed  to  edifying  as  what  alone  was  matter  of  duty. 
But  it  was  not  so,  for  he  declares  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Christian  in  the 
denial  of  his  selfish  inclinations,  so  to  conduct  himself  as  is  for  the  best, 

*  "I  will  not  bo  brought  under  the  power  of  any,"  ovk  tyu  i^ovaiaad/'/aofiai  vno 
Tivoc,  i.  e.,  I  will  not  suffer  myself  to  be  mastered  by  any  outward  things,  but  in  the  spirit 
of  Christian  love  I  will  use  all  things  freely.  Instead  of  availing  myself  of  my  Christian 
freedom,  I  make  myself  rather  a  slave  of  the  right,  if,  in  eating  the  flesh  of  sacrifices,  I 
believe  that  I  am  under  obligation  to  do  so  in  every  case,  without  reference  to  particular 
circumstances. 


NOTHING    INDIFFERENT.  433 

or  for  the  edification  of  the  church,  1  Cor.  x.  24 ;  or,  which  is  equiv- 
alent, as  will  be  for  the  glory  of  God,  1  Cor.  x.  31.  This  is  the  course 
of  action  prescribed  by  Christian  love ;  but  very  different  would  be  the 
course  that  proceeds  from  selfishness,  and  for  that  reason  sinful.  The 
subject  will  be  clearer,  if  we  examine  more  closely  the  particular  case 
under  the  apostle's  consideration.  He  is  speaking  of  partaking  of  certain 
kinds  of  food,  more  particularly  of  meat  offered  to  idols.  All  this  be- 
longs to  the  province  of  things  permitted,  and  in  a  religious  and  moral 
point  of  view  indifferent,  on  which  Christianity  (unlike  Judaism)  laid  no 
restrictions.  "  Meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God  ;  for  neither  if  we  eat 
are  w,'  the  better;  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the  worse,"  1  Cor.  viii. 
8.  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  but  righteousness  and 
peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Rom.  xiv.  17.  But  though  all  this  in 
itself  has  no  moral  character,  and  without  the  addition  of  other  marks 
belongs  to  things  indifferent,  yet  like  everything  belonging  to  human  na- 
ture, it  is  not  excepted  from  the  impression  of  Christian  principle,  for  it 
is  included  in  the  Pauline  maxim,  "  Whatsoever  ye  do,  whether  ye  eat 
or  drink,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God ;"  and  Paul  himself  adduces  in- 
stances in  which  what  is  in  itself  indifferent  may  be  either  a  matter  of 
duty  or  criminal.  An  individual  who,  though  not  sufficiently  advanced 
in  Christian  knowledge  to  attain  the  conviction  that  the  eating  of  meat 
sacrificed  to  idols  is  in  itself  indifferent,  is  yet  seduced  by  worldly  con- 
siderations to  partake  of  it,  acts  in  a  manner  deserving  of  condemnation, 
since  he  does  not  act  according  to  his  convictions  (ovk.  etc  Trtarecog),  Rom. 
xiv.  23.*  And  whoever  eats  of  flesh  offered  to  idols,  following  his  own 
inclination,  and  taking  no  account  of  the  scruples  of  his  weak  brother, 
and  thus  seduces  him  to  follow  his  example  without  a  firm  conviction  of 
its  rectitude,  troubles  his  brother's  conscience,  and  himself  acts  contrary 
to  the  law  of  love,  and  sins;  1  Cor.  viii.  12;  Rom.  xiv.  15.  From  this 
exposition  of  the  apostle's  views  it  appears  that,  since  what  every  one 
has  to  do,  under  the  given  conditions  and  relations  under  which  the 
Lord  has  specially  placed  him,  is  defined  by  Christian  principles,  no  one 
can  accomplish  more  than  the  measure  of  his  individual  duty.  Indeed,  so 
much  will  sinfulness  still  adhere  to  all  his  performances,  that  even  the  most 
advanced  Christian  will  come  short  of  the  requirements  of  duty;  as  Paul, 
referring  to  himself,  acknowledges,  Phil.  iii.  12.  Yet  what  Paul  says  in 
reference  to  his  own  conduct  in  one  particular  instance,  may  seem  to 
contradict  what  has  just  been  remarked,  1  Cor.  ix.  14,  15,  &c.  The 
apostle  was  authorized  in  preaching  the  gospel,  to  receive  his  mainte- 
nance from  the  Christian  communities  for  whom  he  labored ;  but  he 
waived  his  claim  to  it,  and  supported  himself  by  the  labor  of  his  own 
hands.  He  did  in  this,  therefore,  more  than  the  letter  of  the  general 
apostolic  duty  demanded,  since  he  made  no  use  of  what  was  allowable. 

*  Tho  process  of  the  development  of  faith,  as  a  principle  that  vitalizes  the  whole  mind, 
is,  with  such  an  one, not  yet  so  far  advanced  that  he  can  act  from  well  grounded  conviction; 
thua  hia  conduct  is  in  contradiction  to  his  actual  conviction. 


434  LOVE  THE  FRUIT  OF  FAITH. 

But  had  he  made  only  the  letter  of  that  duty  his  rule  of  action,  without 
regard  to  his  individual  life's  work  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  his 
sphere  of  action,  then  would  he  have  been  obliged  to  apply  to  himself 
the  words  of  Christ  in  Luke  xvii.  10.*  Yet  he  certainly  held  it  to  be 
his  duty,  under  all  circumstances,  so  to  act  as  would  most  contribute  to 
the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  a  regard  to  that  object 
induced  him  in  this  instance  to  receive  no  maintenance  from  the  church, 
in  order  that  he  might  avoid  all  appearance  of  self-interest.  Hence  he 
felt  an  inward  compulsion  to  act  thus  ;  and  if  he  had  not  thus  acted  he 
would  have  come  in  conflict  with  his  individual  call,  and  have  been  dis- 
satisfied with  himself;  in  fact  he  had  said  that  he  would  rather  die  than 
act  otherwise.  The  peculiar  circumstances  of  his  ministry,  and  the  pe- 
culiar charism  bestowed  upon  him,  occasioned  a  peculiar  modification  of 
that  which  was  the  general  duty  of  all  preachers  of  the  gospel.  What  in 
his  peculiar  condition  and  sphere  of  labor  was  a  duty,  might  be  contrary 
to  duty  in  the  circumstances  of  others — those  persons,  for  instance,  to 
whom  Providence  had  committed  the  maintenance  of  a  family. 

The  distinctive  and  fundamental  ideas  of  Christian  Morals  are  in  gen- 
eral to  be  deduced  from  the  nature  of  faith  as  a  life-determining  princi- 
ple. From  faith  spontaneously  proceeds  the  love  that  refers  the  whole 
life  to  God,  and  consecrates  it  to  his  service,  for  the  representation  and 
advancement  of  his  kingdom;  for  from  a  knowledge  of  the  love  of  God 
manifested  in  the  Avork  of  redemption,  love  is  kindled  to  Him  who  has 
shown  such  superabounding  love.  In  fact,  as  Paul  conceived  of  faith, 
love  is  already  contained  in  it  in  the  germ  ;  for  what  distinguishes  faith 
in  his  view  from  superstition,  was  that  the  latter,  as  it  arises  only  from 
the  dread  of  sensuous  evil,  only  desires  a  Redeemer  from  such  evil ;  faith, 
on  the  contrary,  develops  itself  from  the  feeling  of  unhappiness  in  sin  as 
gin,  of  inward  estrangement  from  God,  and  of  longing  after  communion 
with  him,  which  already  presupposes  the  underlying  love  of  God  in  the 
heart,  though  checked  and  repressed.  Faith  in  the  Pauline  sense  may, 
indeed,  be  denominated  a  conviction  determined  by  an  underlying  love. 
But  when  the  revelation  of  God's  holy  love  in  the  work  of  redemption, 
which  faith  receives,  awakens  the  slumbering  desire  of  man,  or  meets  it 
already  awakened,  the  germ  of  love  deposited  in  the  heart  is  set  free  from 
its  confinement,  that  it  may  expand  to  communion  with  its  original 
source.  Entering  into  fellowship  with  the  Redeemer,  believers  are 
penetrated  by  the  feeling  of  God's  love  to  them,  and  by  this  method 
alone  can  they  learn  afresh  rightly  to  understand  the  compass  of  God's 
love.f  From  this  perception  of  God's  love,  the  childlike  love  of  believers 
is  continually  inflamed  towards  him,  and  this  love  operates  incessantly  for 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  351. 

f  Rom.  v.  5.  By  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts  and 
makes  itself  felt  there.  The  voice  of  God  himself  in  their  hearts  declares  Ibat  they  are 
his  children  ;  Rom.  viii.  16.  Thus,  in  Eph.  Hi.  17,  there  is  first  the  wish  that  Christ  may 
dwell  in  their  hearts  by  faith,  whereupon  it  follows,  that  their  inner  life  may  be  deeply 


RELATION   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIEE  TO  THE  FUTURE.  435 

the  renovation  of  the  whole  life  after  the  image  of  Christ,  and  for  the 
advancement  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  it  forms  the  life  according  to  the 
heavenly  model  presented  to  it  by  faith.  The  whole  Christian  life  ap- 
pears as  the  one  work  of  faith,  and  thus  all  individual  good  works* 
appear  as  necessary,  immediate  expressions  of  faith,  its  fruits,  the  signs 
of  the  new  creation  effected  by  it.f  As  to  the  work  of  faith,  everything 
is  to  be  referred  back  to  the  activity  of  love.  J  Now  faith  and  love  have 
a  relation,  on  one  side,  to  something  which  is  apprehended  as  present  in 
the  inward  life;  laith  in  communion  with  the  Redeemer  has  already  re- 
ceived a  divine,  blessed  life ;  believers  are  already  incorporated  with  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  have  obtained  the  right  of  citizenship  in  it,  and  by 
partaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit  operating  in  them  by  faith,  they  anticipate 
the  divine  power  and  blessedness  of  this  kingdom  ;  they  have  the  fore- 
taste of  eternal  life  ;§  they  already  possess  the  germs  and  first-fruits  of 
the  New  Creation,  in  which  everything  proceeds  fiom  a  divine  principle 
of  life,  with  which  nothing  heterogeneous  is  allowed  to  mingle — when  it 
attains  its  completion  after  the  resurrection,  Rom.  viii.  23.  But  it  fol- 
lows from  this,  that  the  Christian  life  cannot  at  all  be  thought  of  with- 
out a  reference  to  the  future ;  as  in  the  divine  life  the  Future  becomes  in 
a  certain  sense  a  Present,  so  the  Present  exists  only  in  reference  to  the 
Future,||  for  it  contains  an  anticipation,  the  germ  and  preparation  of  that 
which  will  attain  to  perfect  development  and  completion  only  in  the  Fu- 
ture. Into  the  present  earthly  system  enters  a  higher,  which  cannot  be 
fully  developed  in  believers,  and  the  nature  of  which  is  not  yet  wholly 
manifest,  but  in  many  respects  is  veiled  from  their  vie!w.  The  process 
of  development  of  the  divine  life,  which  they  have  appropriated  to  them- 

rooted  in  the  love  of  God — the  love  of  God  towards  the  redeemed  is  the  element  in  which 
their  whole  inward  life  and  consciousness  rest  —  and  having  been  first  penetrated  by  the 
feeling  of  love,  they  can  then  rightly  understand  its  compass. 

*  The  "  good  works,"  epya  dyaOd  are  to  be  distinguished  from  the  "  works  of  the  law," 
Ipya  vofiovi 

\  The  "  salvation  not  of  works,"  cu-Tjpia  ovk  £!j  epyuv,  as  if  men  by  mere  works  per- 
formed before  conversion  could  earn  salvation  ;  for  the  announcement  of  the  salvation  ob- 
tained for  men  by  redemption,  belongs  as  a  gift  of  unmerited  grace  to  those  who  are  des- 
titute of  the  divine  life,  and  thus  of  the  true  inclination  to  goodness,  whether  they  are  still 
sunk  in  gross  sensuality,  or  are  raised  to  an  outward  legal  morality ;  and  the  "good  works," 
Ipya  dyadd,  which  really  deserve  the  name,  presuppose  that  divine  life  which  proceeds 
from  faith ;  indeed  the  new  creation  must  manifest  itself  by  corresponding  good  works;  is 
designed  to  produce  such.  Hence  the  contrast,  that  believers  are  not  saved  by  works, 
oeouofxtvot  ef  epyuv,  but  created  unto  good  works,  Krcodevrec  enl  epyoir  dyadolc,  Eph.  ii. 
9,  10. 

f  Thes.  i.  3.     to  Zpyov  tt/c  nLareuc,  6  kottoc  ttjc  dyuirric. 

§  The  Holy  Spirit  as  the  «/ty>a/3a>v,  in  relation  to  the  whole  assemblage  of  heavenly 
blessings,  2  Cor.  i.  22,  the  "  earnest"  given  as  a  pledge  of  the  payment  of  the  whole  sum. 

||  This  must  be  carefully  considered,  in  order  rightly  to  understand  the  relation  of  th« 
present  to  the  future  in  a  Christian  sense,  and  to  avoid  the  delusion  of  the  pantheistic  dei- 
fication of  self,  which  imposes  on  the  language  of  Paul  and  John  a  sense  quite  foreign  to 
the  truth. 


436  FAITH    AND    HOPE. 

selves  tnrough  faith,  is  now  only  coming  into  existence,  and  is  in  its  feeble 
beginning.  The  consciousness  of  this  divine  life  is  accompanied  with  a 
Consciousness  of  the  obstacles  by  which  that  life  is  surrounded,  till  human 
nature  is  thoroughly  pervaded  by  it  and  purified  from  all  that  is  alien ; 
while  this  consciousness,  at  the  same  time,  produces  a  longing  after  that 
perfect  freedom  which  is  the  destiny  of  the  children  of  God.  Though  it 
is  always  presupposed  that  believers  have  already  attained  the  dignity 
and  privileges  of  the  children  of  God,  still  their  rights  relate  to  some- 
thing future,  for  all  that  is  involved  in  the  idea  of  adoption,  all  that  be- 
longs to  the  dignity,  glory,  and  blessedness  of  the  children  of  God,  is 
very  far  from  being  realized  on  earth.  With  a  view  to  this,  it  is  said  in 
Rom.  viii.  23,  that  Christians  who  have  received  the  first-fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  groan  after  the  perfect  manifestation  of  the  dignity  of  the  children 
of  God,*  after  their  redemption  from  all  that  checks  and  depresses  their 
inward  life.  This  longing  after  the  other  world,  is  as  essential  a  feature 
of  the  Christian  life  as  the  partial  and  fragmentary  anticipation  of  the 
future  in  the  participation  of  the  divine  life  through  faith.  From  this 
point  of  view  Paul  utters  words  which  are  and  must  be  the  greatest 
offence  to  that  pantheistic  deification  of  the  world  and  self,  which  in  its 
innermost  spirit  is  thoroughly  opposed  to  Christianity,  since  from  Pan- 
theism consistently  carried  out  there  ean  proceed  only  a  direction  of  life 
which  is  absolutely  opposed  to  that  of  Christianity  :  "  We  should  be  the 
most  miserable  of  all  men  if  we  had  hope  in  Christ  in  this  life  only,  with  no 
higher  future  existence  in  which  our  hopes  might  be  fulfilled  ;  for  the 
Christian  life  would  be  then  a  life  full  of  delusive  wants  that  would  never 
be  satisfied,  a  pursuit  after  unreal  phantoms,  the  offspring  of  self-decep- 
tive desires."  Filled  with  divine  assurance  of  his  convictions  and  expe- 
rience, Paul  would  turn  away  with  abhorrence  from  views  which  would 
make  all  his  conflicts  and  efforts  appear  as  if  devoted  to  a  nonentity. 
If  the  soul,  under  a  sense  of  the  burden  which  weighs  down  the  higher 

*  The  "  adoption,"  vlodecia,  though,  in  Gal.  iv.  5,  this  is  attributed  to  believing  as  some, 
thing  already  present.  If  we  compare  this  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  with 
that  quoted  from  the  Romans,  we  shall  discover  a  threefold  and  regularly  progressive  ap- 
plication of  the  idea  of  adoption.  At  first,  Paul,  appropriating  the  term  applied  to  the 
theocratic  nation  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  whom  promises  were  given  of  an  inheritance 
(the  "nlripovofiia)  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  considers  this  nation  as  destined  to  adoption. 
Those  persons  to  whom  the  law  and  the  prophets  were  given,  are  certainly  children  and 
heirs,  but  they  have  not  yet  attained  to  the  actual  self-conscious  appropriation  of  the  filial 
relation,  and  to  the  exercise  of  the  rights  grounded  upon  it.  Since  they  are  in  a  state  of 
minority,  are  standing  under  the  guardianship  and  discipline  of  the  law,  and  their  father's 
will  is  not  consciously  and  freely  become  their  own,  their  relation  to  him  can  be  no  other 
than  that  of  outward  dependence  and  servitude.  But  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  by  com- 
munion with  him  as  the  Son,  they  become  freed  from  this  dependence  and  servitude,  and 
attain  to  a  self-conscious,  mature,  and  free,  filial  relation.  And  this  relation  in  its  full  ex- 
tent, includes  all  that  which  is  founded  in  the  idea  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  perfect 
communion  of  his  holiness,  blessedness,  and  glory ;  hence  a  progressive  development  of  this 
relationship  takes  place,  until  the  appearance  of  the  children  of  God  will  perfectly  cor- 
respond to  the  idea  of  a  child  of  God ;  which  is  the  third  application  of  this  idea. 


FAITH   AND    HOPE.  43'J 

life,  is  absorbed  in  such  longings  not  confined  to  one  single  object,  and 
words  fail  to  express  the  deeply  felt  necessities  of  the  heart,  these  silent 
aspirations  rising  from  the  depths  of  a  heart  yearning  after  true  and 
complete  freedom,  and  yet  resigned  to  the  will  of  its  heavenly  Father, 
constitute  prayer  acceptable  to  God,  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  the 
Spirit  of  adoption.  The  whole  state  of  such  a  soul  is  prayer.  The  Spirit 
of  God  himself  intercedes  for  it  with  inexpressible  and  silent  groans ; 
Rom.  viii.  26.  Thus  in  Coloss.  iii.  3,  it  is  said,  that  as  the  glory  of  Christ 
exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God  is  hid  from  the  world,  so  also  the  glory 
of  the  inner  life  of  believers,  proceeding  from  communion  with  him,  is 
still  hidden  with  Christ  in  God,  and  its  appearance  does  not  correspond  at 
present  to  its  nature.  But  when  Christ,  the  author  and  source  of  their 
life,  shall  manifest  himself  in  his  glory,  then  shall  their  hidden  glory  be 
manifest,  and  correspond  in  appearance  to  its  original ;  Col.  iii.  4. 

From  this  relation  of  the  Christian  life  of  faith  and  love  to  a  creation 
that  is  to  be  perfectly  developed  and  completed  only  in  the  future  state, 
it  follows  that  Faith  and  Love  cannot  subsist  without  Hope.*  Faith 
itself  becomes  hope,  in  so  far  as  it  apprehends  salvation  only  as  something 
to  be  realized  in  the  future  ;  Rom.  viii.  24.f  Faith  is  proved  and 
strengthened  by  conflicts  and  sufferings  ;  by  the  opposition  which  it  has 
to  overcome,  it  develops  the  consciousness  of  its  indwelling  divine  power, 
and  of  those  divine  results  which  are  not  yet  apparent,  but  stretch  into 
eternity  ;  and  thus  it  expands  into  hope  for  the  future.J  The  conscious- 
ness .of  the  love  of  God  contains  the  pledge  for  the  certain  fulfilment  of 
hope.  The  faith  that  operates  by  love  could  not  persist  in  the  efforts 
which  so  many  obstacles  oppose,  in  conflict  with  the  inward  and  out- 
ward world,  if  the  prospect  were  not  granted  of  certainly  attaining  its 
end.  Hence  Perseverance^  in  the  work  and  conflict  of  faith  is  the  prac- 
tical side  of  hope.      Hope,    iX-rug,  and  perseverance  (or  "  patience,") 

*  If  we  reflect  how  all  the  ideas  relating  to  the  dignity  and  blessedness  conferred  by 
Christianity  refer  alike  to  something  Present  and  something  Future,  and  accordingly 
admit  of  various  and  manifold  application,  it  will  be  easy  to  explain  why,  in  Gal.  v.  5, 
"  righteousness,"  is  represented,  in  reference  to  its  perfect  realization  in  the  life  of  believers, 
as  an  object  of  expectation  and  hope  ;  and  it  belongs  also  to  the  contrast  between  the 
Jewish  legalism  and  Christianity,  that  with  the  former  it  was  supposed  that  "righteous- 
ness" might  be  possessed  as  something  outwardly  perceptible  and  apparent,  though  the 
distinction  between  the  idea  and  the  appearance  was  not  thought  of. 

f  If  hope  be  here  understood  subjectively,  it  will  be  placed  instead  of  faith  as  laying 
hold  of  salvation ;  for  faith  itself  can  exist  in  necessary  relation  to  the  future  only  as 
hope.  Butifhopobe  understood  objectively,  then  it  will  signify  that  salvation  is  here 
presented  as  the  object  of  hope,  which,  on  account  of  the  various  meanings  attached  to  the 
word  hope,  may  be  taken  as  the  meaning  here. 

\  Rom.  v.  4.  Perseverance  under  sufferings  produces  a  comfirmation  (of  faith),  and 
confirmation  of  faith  produces  hope. 

§  On  this  idea  and  its  relation  to  the  Christian  idea  of  Hope,  see  Schleierraacher  in 
his  Academical  Lec'ure  iiber  die  wissenschaftliche  Behandlung  dts  Tugendbegriffes,182Q. 


438  FAITH   AND   KNOWLEDGE. 

v7TOfj.ov7j,  appear  as  associated  ideas,*  and  the  latter  term  is  sometimes 
used  instead  of  hope.f 

1  We  must  here  examine  more  closely  the  relation  of  Knowledge  in 
religion  to  these  three  fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  life,  as  laid 
down  in  the  Pauline  theology.  Faith  presupposes  and  includes  know- 
ledge, for  it  cannot  exist  without  a  reference  of  the  disposition  to  some- 
thing objective  ;  there  must  be  an  object  of  knowledge  to  operate  on  the 
disposition. |  But  the  divine  cannot  be  known  from  without,  in  a  merely 
abstract  logical  manner,  but  only  from  the  divine  as  an  element  of  life  in 
the  soul,  by  the  sense  for  the  divine.  As  long  as  man  is  opposed  to  the 
divine  in  the  bias  of  his  disposition,  he  cannot  know  the  divine.  Hence 
Paul  says,  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  the  natural  man  who  is  estranged  from  the  divine 
life,  receives  not  what  proceeds  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  it  appears  to 
him  (precisely  on  account  of  this  his  subjective  relation  to  the  divine)  as 
foolishness,  and  he  is  unable  to  know  it,  because  it  can  be  rightly  under- 
stood and  appreciated  only  in  a  spiritual  manner,  that  is,  by  means  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  {jrvev^a  dytov,)  so  that  a  participation  in  this  spirit  of  a 
higher  life  is  presupposed.  Hence,  also,  we  are  not  to  conceive  of  faith§ 
as  something  proceeding  from  unassisted  human  nature,  from  man  in  his 
natural  state ;  but  the  manner  in  which  faith  arises  in  the  disposition, 
presupposes  the  entrance  of  the  divine  into  the  conscience  and  inner  life. 
But  as  the  knowledge  of  divine  things  depends  upon  a  participation  of 
the  divine  life,  it  follows  that,  in  proportion  as  the  divine  life  received  by 
faith  progressively  develops,  as  the  contents  of  faith  are  vitalized  by  in- 
ward experience,  the  knowledge  of  these  contents  enlarges  in  a  higher 
degree,  and  hence  this  wider  expansion  of  knowledge  is  described  as  a 
fruit  of  faith. ||  And  since  the  divine  life  of  faith  is  love,  since  faith  in  the 
Pauline  sense  cannot  be  conceived  of  without  love,  it  is  evident  that  the 
true  knowledge  of  divine  things  can  only  continue  to  be  developed  ac- 
cording to  the  measure  of  increasing  love.  Hence  Paul  says  in  1  Cor. 
viii.  2,  that  without  love  there  can  be  only  the  appearance  of  knowledge. 
But  as  this  divine  life  in  the  believer  is  ever  subject  to  disturbing  and 
depressing  influences,  and  exists  only  in  a  fragmentary  and  alloyed  state, 
it  follows  that  the  knowledge  arising  from  it  will  never  be  otherwise 
than  defective.  This  may  also  be  inferred  from  what  we  have  before  re- 
marked respecting  the  relation  of  faith  to  the  higher  order  of  things  still 
veiled  from  human  sight,  with  which  faith  places  us  in  vital  communion, 
and  to  the  nature  of  that  adoption  which  is  at  present  so  imperfectly 
realized,  owing  to  the  opposition  between  the  idea  of  it  and  its  actual 
manifestation.  Hence  Paul  makes  a  contrast  between  that  knowledge 
which,  from  the  position  of  the  present  life,  is  unequal  to  the  contents  of 

*  1  Thess.  i.  3.  vko/xovtj  ttjc  t-AffiJof.  f  2  Thess.  i.  4. 

%  See  p.  419.  §  Ibid. 

|   Coloss.  i.  9;  Ephes.  i.  18.     In  the  last  passage,  knowledge   is  represented  as  ao 
effect  of  the  illumination  proceeding  from  faith. 


FAITH    AND    KNOWLEDGE.  439 

faith,  and  that  immediate  vision  which,  from  the  position  of  the  world  to 
come,  perfectly  corresponds  to  all  that  faith  contains.  He  illustrates  the 
relation  of  the  two,  by  a  comparison  of  the  knowledge  we  possess  of 
objects  by  seeing  them  reflected  in  a  dim  mirror,  with  the  knowledge 
obtained  by  immediate  vision  ;  by  comparing  the  notions  of  children 
(which  contains  a  certain  portion  of  truth,  though  not  developed  with 
clearness  and  certainly,  so  that  there  is  a  continuity  of  knowledge  carried 
on  from  the  child  to  the  man)  with  the  ideas  of  mature  manhood  ;*  by- 
contrasting  what  is  fragmentary  and  isolated  with  what  is  perfect;  1  Cor. 
xiii.  9-12.  Such  is  the  knowledge  of  divine  things  as  they  are  shadowed 
forth  to  us  in  our  temporal  consciousness,  compared  with  the  intuition  of 
the  things  themselves.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  Paul  was  conscious 
that  he  could  speak  of  these  things  only  in  a  symbolical  form,  which 
veiled  and  contained  a  higher  reality.  Therefore,  from  the  sense  of  the 
defectiveness  and  limitation  of  our  present  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
divine  things,  a  longing  is  excited  after  that  perfect  knowledge  which 
the  mind  of  man,  allied  to  its  Maker  and  filled  with  a  divine  life, -requires. 
This  longing  naturally  merges  into  hope. 

We  are  now  led  to  inquire,  why  Paul,  when  he  represents  faith,  hope, 
and  love  as  the  abiding,  unchangeable  foundations  of  the  Christian  life 
in  its  earthly  development,!  distinguishes  love  as  the  greatest  of  these 

*  We  may  here  compare  Plato's  representation  of  two  kinds  of  knowledge,  at  the  be* 
ginning  of  the  sevenih  book  of  his  Republic.  As  if  a  person  were  confined  in  a  cavern 
where  the  light  only  feebly  glimmered,  and  he  saw  merely  the  shadows  of  objects  by  that 
faint  light;  and  afterwards,  regaining  his  liberty,  became  acquainted  with  the  objects 
themselves  as  they  appeared  in  broad  daylight.  In  this  manner  Plato  contrasts  two  po- 
sitions in  the  present  life ;  the  position  of  the  multitude,  the  slaves  of  sense,  and  the 
position  of  the  higher  intellectual  life,  as  it  is  presented  by  Philosophy.  This  higher 
position  of  Philosophy  might  be  allowed  in  the  state  of  the  ancient  heathen  world:  but 
Christianity  will  allow  no  such  intellectual  aristocraticalncss.  This  would  become  a  beau- 
tiful image  in  a  Christian  sense,  if  applied,  not  to  the  contrast  between  the  degrees  of 
knowledge  in  this  life  and  those  in  the  future,  but  to  that  between  the  views  of  the  world 
entertained  by  the  natural  man,  and  those  which  the  divine  light  of  the  gospel  imparts  to 
all  who  receive  it.  We  may  here  compare  with  Paul's  language,  the  beautiful  remark* 
of  Gregory  Nazianzen:     Qeov  5  ri  nore  fikv  eari  tt/v  <j>vaiv  xai  rf/v  ovaiav,  ovte  Tig  evpev 

dvftfJUTTUV   TZUXOTE,    OVTE  fll/V   EV()T).     IlI'/l     eI    flEV    ElipTjOEl  TT0TE,    $T]Ttiodu  TOVTO,  Evp?']<7EC   6t  G>f 

k/ioc  Tioyoc,  ettelMv  rb  Oeosuleg  tovto  kcCi  Oeiov,  liyu  61  rbv  T/fisrspov  vovv  re  i(dl  2.6yov, 
Taj  oUeio)  npoa/ii^rj,  icai  r/  eIkuv  ijveIOq  npbc  to  upxtTvtvov^ovvvv  ejet  t>/v  E<f>£mv,  Kal  tovto 
Eivai  fioi  SokeI  to  tti'ivv  <j>i/.ooo<j>ov/i£vov  tmyvuoEodai  ttote  r]iiu<;,  oo~ov  tyvuo/nEda.  Td  de 
vvv  Eivat  ftpaxeJu.  tic  unop'p'or)  ttov  to  «f  iifiug  (pduvov,  ical  olov  fiEyaAov  duTog  /niKpbv 
unavyac/ia. —  Oral  34.  (What  God  is  in  his  nature  and  essence  no  man  has  ever  yet  dis- 
covered, or  can  discover.  But  if  he  will  discover,  let  it  be  sought.  And  ho  shall  ascer- 
tain it,  according  to  my  doctrines,  when  this  godlike  and  divine — I  speak  of  our  under- 
standing and  reason — shall  mingle  with  its  own,  and  the  image  shall  ascend  to  its  arche- 
type, for  which  it  has  a  longing;  and  this  seems  to  me  to  be  the  preeminent  aim  of  phi- 
losophy, that  we  shall  sometime  know  as  we  are  known.  The  present  life,  so  far  as  it  all 
relates  to  us,  is  a  certain  emanation,  and  as  it  were,  a  faint  reflection  of  a  great  light.) 

\  In  reference  to  understanding  this,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  we  consider  the 
"now,"  vvvl,  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  13,  as  an  illative  particle  or  one  of  time,  for  in  either  caso,  what 


440  KNOWLEDGE   AND   HOPE. 

three.  What  is  asserted  by  the  Catholics  is  indeed  true,  that  love  alone 
can  give  faith  its  true  value,  since  it  makes  it  living,  and  hence  forms  the 
criterion  between  dead  and  living  faith.*  It  is  equally  true,  that  love 
forms  the  difference  between  genuine  Christian  and  carnal  selfish  hope.f 
But  in  this  connexion  Paul  could  not,  according  to  his  own  association 
of  ideas,  intend  to  say  that  love  was  the  greatest,  for  love  in  its  true 
Christian  meaning  presupposes  faith  (love  in  a  general  sense  is  a  different 
thing ;  that  love  which  proceeds  from  the  universal  sense  of  God 
implanted  in  the  human  mind,  and  from  the  general  manifestations  of  the 
love  of  God  in  the  creation  and  in  the  heart  of  a  man  who  follows  the 
diyine  guidance  ;)  and  faith  again  in  a  certain  manner  presupposes  love, 
and  that  which  Paul  distinguishes  by  the  name  of  faith  stands  in  the 
closest  connexion  with  love,  includes  it  in  itself.  What  the  Catholic 
church  understands  by  the  term  fides  informis,  Paul, would  not  esteem 
worthy  of  being  called  faith.  He  calls  love  the  greatest  rather  for  this 
reason,  that  it  is  the  only  eternal,  abiding  form  of  the  connexion  of  the 
human  spirit  with  the  divine  ;  love  alone  endures  beyond  this  earthly 
life ;  it  will  never  give  place  to  the  development  of  a  higher  principle, 
but  will  expand  itself  in  perpetuity.  J 

Thus  these  three  fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  life,  Faith, 
Hope,  and  Love,  are  intimately  connected  with  one  another  ;  and  since 
everything  which  directly  or  indirectly  belongs  to  man's  moral  nature  is 
brought  under  their  control,  and  receives  from  them  a  peculiar  character, 
whatever  is  distinctive  in  the  nature  of  Christian  morals  is  derived  from 
them. 

Paul  here  says  can  relate  only  to  the  present  earthly  condition  of  the  Christian  life.  Ac- 
cording to  Paul's  views,  hope  necessarily  relates  to  something  still  future,  not  yet 
realized ;  when  the  realization  takes  place,  hope  ceases  to  exist ;  Rom.  viii.  24.  And 
faith  and  the  perfect  knowledge  of  immediate  intuition  are  ideas  that  reciprocally  ex- 
clude one  another  ;  2  Cor.  v.  7.  When  the  late  Dr.  Billroth  in  his  Commentary  on  this 
Epistle,  supposes  the  [ievel  to  refer  to  the  objects  of  these  graces  as  eternal  and  abiding, 
this  certainly  cannot  be  Paul's  idea,  for  they  are  indeed  unchangeable,  and  the  same  for 
all  the  three  operations  of  the  Spirit;  but  these  three  terms  refer  to  the  subjective  relation 
in  which  man  stands  to  divine  things,  and  this  relation  under  the  form  of  faith  and  hope, 
is  suited  only  to  the  earthly  condition,  and  is  itself  transitory.  Love  only  is  in  itself 
abiding,  jievov. 

*  The  fides  informis  and  the  fides  formata. 

f  The  "spiritual"  (rrvev^aTiKr/),  and  the  "carnal"  (aapKiK/j)  as  proceeding  from  a 
heathenish  and  from  a  Jewish  element. 

J  Augustin  beautifully  remarks,  in  one  of  his  earlier  productions:  "  Fides  quare  sit 
necessaria,  quum  jam  videat  ?  Spes  nihilominus,  quia  jam  tenet  ?  Caritati  vero  non 
solum  nihil  detrahetur,  sed  addetur  etiam  plurimum,  nam  et  illam  singularem  veramque 
pulchritudinem  quum  viderit,  plus  amabit,  et  nisi  ingenti  amore  oculum  infixerit,  nee  ab 
aapiciendo  uspiam  declinaverit,  manere  in  ilia  beatissima  visione  non  poterH." — Soliliquia, 
L  §  14.  (Why  may  faith  be  necessary  when  it  already  sees?  or  hope  since  it  already 
possesses?  But  of  charity,  there  shall  not  only  be  no  diminution  but  a  very  great  addi- 
tion; for  when  one  may  behold  that  only  and  true  beauty,  he  will  love  the  more,  and  un- 
less he  may  fix  the  eye  with  strong  love,  nor  turn  at  any  time  from  beholding,  can  one 
remain  in  that  most  blessed  vision  ?) 


TRUE    AND    FALSE    HUMILITY.  441 

Inseparable  from  these  fundamental  principles  of  the  Christian  life  is 
the  idea  of  Humility,  raneivo(ppoavvi].  This  quality  which  is  closely- 
connected  with  the  whole  existence  of  the  theocratic  point  of  view 
already  developed  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  is  evident  from  the 
ideas  conveyed  by  the  terms  "afflicted,"  "distressed,"  humble  in 
spirit,"  "a  broken  and  contrite  heart,"  «»,  ■>$»,  Vb»,  aV, 
n^na4!  "»*S  ,  forms  the  basis  of  the  contrariety  between  the  Christian, 
and  the  ancient  view  of  the  world.  It  serves  to  mark  this  contrariety 
when  the  word  raneivbv  or  hutnile*  which  in  accordance  with  the  an- 
cient view  was  wont  to  be  employed  in  a  bad  sense,  is  converted  in  the 
Christian  ethics  into  a  designation  of  what  constitutes  the  basis  of  all 
higher  life,  and  of  all  true  nature.  As  from  the  predominance  of  self- 
consciousness  and  self-confidence  among  the  ancients,  "humble,"  rarreivov, 
was  used  to  mark  a  mean,  slavish  disposition,  so  on  the  other  hand  "  great- 
ness of  soul,"  (ieyaXoTpvxta,\  was  used  as  the  symbol  of  true  elevation  of 
soul,  a  certain  pride  of  self-consciousness,  which  stands  in  diametric  op- 
position to  the  essence  of  Christian  humility.  Something  bearing  an 
affinity  to  that  ethical  idea  of  revealed  religion,  is  found  in  a  historical 
reflection  of  Herodotus,  that  the  self-exaltation  of  human  greatness  is 
punished  in  history  by  the  judgment  of  God,  who  humbles  the  great  and 
lofty,  and  exalts  the  little. J  Underneath  this,  however,  lies  a  conscious- 
ness of  the  controversy  between  God  and  the  creature  ;  a  dark  opposing 
force  presents  itself  to  the  soul,  permitting  nothing  noble  to  spring  up.  In 
order  that  this  undertone  of  religious  feeling  should  pass  over  intohumility, 
there  must  intervene  the  consciousness  of  reconciliation  with  God.  What 
lies  at  the  basis  of  the  view  of  history  taken  by  Herodotus,  appears  ele- 
vated to  an  ethical  and  religious  contemplation,  when  Plato,  speaking  of 
the  manner  in  which  God  reveals  himself  in  history,  says,  "  He  is  always 
accompanied  by  Justice,  diKr),  which  punishes  the  deviations  from  the 
divine  law  ;  and  whoever  would  be  happy,  let  him  follow  patiently  in 
dependence  on  the  divine  justice,  humble  and  orderly."§  Here  raTC8cv6r7]g 
is  marked  as  the  disposition,  in  virtue  of  which  a  man  submits  himself 
humbly  to  the  Divine  laws,  in  contrast  to  the  pride  of  the  wicked,  who, 
forsaken  by  God,  is  visited  by  punishment.  And  Plutarch,  who  perhaps 
had  that  passage  of  Plato  in  his  thoughts,  makes  a  similar  use  of  it,  when 

*  See  Knapp's  excellent  remarks  on  this  opposition  in  his  Scripta  varii  Argumenti, 
ed.  II.  p.  367.  Aristotle  also  uses  the  word  to  denote  a  slavish  disposition. — TotSf  /xijd' 
tp'  uaoic  <5ei  Kivovfievove  tov  dvfibv,  uAAu  TrponrjAaKifyfiivovc  evxepCic  kciI  Taneivovg  npb( 
rug  oAiyupiac. 

\  Aokei  fieya^oipvxoc  elvai  6  fieyuAuv  avrbv  d£iuv  ut;io<;  uv.  Eth.  Nieomach.  lib.  iv 
c.  7. 

J  QxAeei  6  6ed(  tu  vTzepexovra  nuvra  noAoveiv,  oi  yap  kci  (ppoveeiv  fieya  6  8ebc  uAAov  fj 
iuvrov.     Lib.  vii.  c.  10,  §  5. 

§  To  6'  del  ZvviTicrai  dUrj  rwv  dnoAeiirofjevuv  tov  delov  vo/jlov  rifivpoc.  *Hf  6  fih 
evdaifiovrjaeiv  fieA?MV  y;o//evof  ^vvsnerat  Tairtivbc  nal  KeKOCfiTjfievo^.  De  Legib.  lib.  iv 
ed.  Bipont.  vol.  viii.  p  185. 


442  TRUE   AXD   FALSE   HUMILITY. 

he  says  that  "  wickedness,  when  checked  by  punishment,  can  scarcely  be 
made  considerate,  humble,  and  God-fearing."*  Yet  in  both  passages  we 
have  not  the  whole  idea  of  humility,  but  only  a  part  of  it — humility  in 
reference  to  God  as  a  judge. 

But  the  Christian  idea  of  humility  comprehends  the  full  consciousness 
of  dependence  on  God  as  the  animating  principle  of  life  in  all  its  re- 
lations, the  consciousness  of  the  innate  weakness  of  all  created  beings, 
the  consciousness  of  inability  to  be  or  to  do  anything  except  through 
God,  and  the  disposition  which  is  founded  in  the  consciousness  of  all  this. 
But  from  the  legal  point  of  view,  this  consciousness  was  either  only 
partial,  inasmuch  as  self-righteousness  (which  implied  a  desire  of  inde- 
pendence in  reference  to  moral  development  and  the  attainment  of  salva- 
tion) counteracted  the  perfect  acknowledgment  of  dependence  on  God  ; 
or,  where  the  feeling  of  internal  disunion  had  been  developed  to  its  utmost 
extent,  and  the  feeling  of  estrangement  from  a  holy  Omnipotence  became 
predominant,  only  the  negative  element  of  humility  remained,  the  con- 
sciousness of  personal  worthlessness  as  something  mortifying  to  pride, 
the  consciousness  of  an  impassable  chasm  between  the  limited  sinful 
creature  and  the  Almighty, Holy  Creator.  But  when  to  this  feeling  is 
added  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  the  consciousness  of  having  obtained 
redemption,  the  positive  is  blended  with  the  negative  element ;  there  arises 
the  consciousness  of  participation  in  the  divine  life  and  in  the  high  dignity 
of  adoption  bestowed  by  God.  If,  on  the  contrary,  that  connexion 
between  these  two  points,  which  belongs  to  the  essence  of  Christian 
knowledge  and  of  the  Christian  disposition,  be  dissolved,  and  the 
negative  element  be  unduly  brought  forward,  a  false  self-humiliation 
is  produced, — a  self-renunciation  with  a  denial  of  the  dignity  founded 
on  the  consciousness  of  redemption, — a  sense  of  depression  without 
that  sense  of  exaltation  which  is  blended  with  it  in  the  consciousness 
of  redemption.  Such  a  false  humility,  which  displays  itself  in  out- 
ward gestures  and  ceremonies,  Paul  combated  in  the  false  teachers  of 
the  Colossian  church  ;  but  he  classed  this  mock-humility  with  spiritual 
pride,  veiled  as  it  was  under  the  form  of  an  ascetic  self-abasement.f 

*  'kva.npovoiJ.Evri  ru  KO?ui^taBai  tcuda  \iokiq  uv  yevoiro  avvvovq  kui  rairsivfj  na.1  Kara- 
(popoc  npuc  rbv  deov.     De  Sera  Numinis  Vindicta,  c.  3. 

f  This  is  a  caricature  of  humility,  which  has  often  reappeared  in  the  history  of  the 
church  ;  and  thus  the  nature  of  genuine  Christian  humility  has  been  frequently  mistaken 
by  those  who  were  strangers  to  the  true  Christian  spirit,  and  knew  not  how  to  dis- 
tinguish a  morbid  from  a  healthy  state  of  the  spiritual  life.  An  individual  of  this  class, 
Spinoza,  justly  says  of  that  mock-humility,  which  alone  can  exist  where  the  natural  feel- 
ings are  not  overpowered  by  the  force  of  a  divine  principle  of  life,  and  at  the  same  time 
transformed  into  something  higher,  and  where  man  has  not  risen  from' the  depths  of  self- 
abasement  to  a  nobler  condition:  "Hi  affectus,  nempe  humilitas  et  abjectio,  rarissimi 
sunt.  Nam  natura  humana,  in  se  considerata,  contra  eosdem,  quantum  potest,  nititur,  et 
ideo,  qui  maxime  creduntur  abjecti  et  humiles  esse,  maxime  plerumque  ambitiosi  et  invidi 
sunt."  (These  qualities,  namely,  humility  and  lowliness,  are  of  the  rarest.  For  human 
nature,  in  itself  considered,  resists  them  with  all  its  force,  and  hence  those  believed  to  be 


TBUE   AND   FALSE    HUMILITY.  443 

"With  the  consciousness  of  the  nothingness  of  all  that  man  can  be  and 
effect  by  his  own  power,  Paul  combined  the  eleva,ting  consciousness  of 
what  man  is  and  can  perform  through  the  Lord  ;  to  the  phrases,  as  per- 
taining  to  the  flesh,  glorying  in  man,  Kara  adpna,  iv  dvdpu>nu)  KavxJaoQai 
he  opposes  the  glorying  in  the  Lord,  ev  Kvpio)  navxaodcu.  As  humility 
first  acquires  its  true  character  through  the  love  that  proceeds  from  faith, 
as  through  love  man's  whole  life  is  pervaded  b,y  a  sense  of  his  dependence 
on  God,  and  the  human  will  becomes  an  organ  of  the  divine,  so  also 
Christian  love  cannot  exist  without  an  abiding  consciousness  of  the  dif- 
ference between  the  creature  and  the  Creator,  the  redeemed  and  the 
Redeemer,  and  the  sense  of  dependence  which  that  difference  involves. 
It  is  this  consciousness  which  Paul  thus  expresses  :  "  What  hast  thou, 
which  thou  hast  not  received  ?"  1  Cor.  iv.  7.  It  was  this  consciousness 
which  animated  him  in  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  a  consciousness  of  his 
weakness  as  a  man,*  which  was  deepened  by  his  sufferings  and  conflicts, 
though  accompanied  by  the  conviction  that  he  could  do  all  things  required 
of  him,  through  the  power  of  the  Lord  ;  Acts  xx.  19.  Thus  that  state  of 
mind  is  produced  which  he  describes  as  "  with  fear  and  trembling," 
[ietcl  (popov  not  rpofiov.  This  is  far  from  being  the  mark  of  a  slavish 
fear,  but  only  of  that  state  of  mind  which  proceeds  from  a  sense  of  the 
insufficiency  of  everything  human  in  the  momentous  duties  of  a  divine 
calLf 

Humility  bears  an  immediate  relation  to  God  alone,  ami,  according  to 
the  Pauline  views,  can  have  reference  to  no  other  object.  Every  refer- 
ence to  man  and  the  creation  generally,  is  strictly  excluded  ;  for  in  humil- 
ity there  is  a  consciousness  of  the  dependence  of  the  creation  as  such  on 
the  Creator,  inclusive  of  the  whole  assemblage  of  created  beings.  It  fol- 
lows, that  a  man  who  is  thoroughly  imbued  with  this  sentiment  does  not 
make  any  fellow-creature  the  object  of  it,  but  as  far  as  his  spiritual  life  is 
concerned,  is  perfectly  independent  of  men,  while  sensible  of  his  continual 
dependence  on  God.  To  act  differently  would  be  to  transfer  to  a  creature 
the  honor  due  to  the  Creator.  As  it  is  opposed  to  every  slavish  feeling, 
it  inspires  the  soul  with  that  true  Christian  freedomj  which  Paul  so  ad- 
mirably develops  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  as  opposed  to 
every  species  of  a  slavish  deference  to  men.  But  though  humility  in  and 
of  itself  does  not  directly  affect,  our  behavior  to  our  fellow-men,  there 
yet  flows  from  it  the  right  determination  of  Christian  conduct  towards 
others.     He  who  is  rightly  penetrated  with  the  feelings  of  dependence  on 


specially  lowly  and  humble  are  oftentimes  specially  ambitious  and  envious.) — Ethices,  pars 
iii.  §  29. 

*  See  p.  171. 

f  Thus  in  Philip,  ii.  12,  he  deduces  "working  out  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling," 
from  the  consciousness  that  all  things  depend  on  the  power  of  God,  who  works  "  to  will 
and  to  do." 

X  See  page  432. 


444  TRUE   AND    FALSE    HUMILITY. 

God  in  reference  to  his  whole  existence  and  conduct,  an  1  with  the  no- 
tlhingness  of  everything  human  while  living  only  for  one's  self,  will  not 
pride  himself  in  his  abilities,  but  feel  that  they  are  bestowed  upon  him 
by  God  for  a  definite  object,  and  must  be  used  in  dependence  on  him ; 
in  his  intercourse  with  others,  he  will  bear  in  mind  the  defects,  the  limits, 
and  the  imperfection  of  his  own  character  and  abilities,  and  the  dependence 
of  himself,  as  well  as  of  all  other  men,  on  their  common  Lord.  From 
this  humility  will  naturally  arise  an  aversion  from  every  kind  of  self-ex- 
altation in  a  man's  conduct  towards  others,  and  that  which  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Christian  character  is  the  foundation  of  modesty,  and  hence 
is  distinguished  by  no  particular  name  in  Paul's  writings,  is  related  to 
the  idea  of  humility  and  derived  from  it,  as  in  Phil.  ii.  3.  And  it  is  not 
without  reason  that  gentleness,  meekness,  and  long-suffering  are  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  humility.     Eph.  iv.  2;  Col.  iii.  12. 

In  order  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  divine  life  in  its  conflict  with 
the  world  and  the  flesh,  from  within  and  from  without,  to  prevent  un- 
happy mixtures  of  the  human  with  the  divine,  the  oucppoovvT],  the  ooxppo- 
veiv  is  requisite,  the  self-government  and  conquest  over  the  world  that 
proceeds  from  love,  or  Christian  circumspection  and  sober-mindedness. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  a  spirit  of  "  love,"  dydirn  and  of  "  a 
sound  mind,"  ouippoviofiog,  2  Tim.  i.  7.*  The  latter  word,  as  its  etymology 
imports,  signifies  that  quality  by  which  the  Christian  life  is  preserved  in 
a  healthy  state,  and  kept  free  from  all  noxious  influences.  Humility, 
which  guards  the  boundary  between  the  divine  and  the  human,  is  accom- 
panied by  the  "  thinking  soberly,"  (ppovelv  elg  to  o&HppoveTv,  which  acts 
as  an  antidote  to  the  intoxication  of  self-esteem,  and  promotes  a  sober 
valuation  of  one's  own  worth,  the  remembrance  of  the  measure  of  ability 
and  gifts  granted  to  each  one,  as  well  as  the  special  position  allotted 
to  each,  and  so  protects  against  arrogating  too  much  to  one's  self;  Rom. 
xii.  3.  With  this  is  connected  the  watching  and  being  sober,  eypi]yop£vai 
kcu  vrj(peiv,  by  means  of  which  the  sensual  and  the  natural  are  prevented 
from  interfering  with  the  movements  of  the  divine  life,  and  the  mind  is 
kept  clear  of  all  enthusiastic  tendencies.  Moreover,  since  faith  working 
by  love  ought  to  govern  the  whole  life,  animate  it  with  a  new  spirit,  and 
form  it  for  the  service  of  God,  it  will  be  requisite  for  this  end,  that  the 
reason,  enlightened  by  this  spirit,should  acquire  the  capability  of  so  regu- 
lating the  whole  life,  of  so  managing  and  applying  all  the  relations  of 
social  and  civil  life,  as  will  be  suited  to  realize  the  design  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  according  to  the  place  assigned  to  each  individual  by  Providence. 
This  is  expressed  by  the  term  aocpiaj  which  comprehends  the  ideas  of 

*  Titus,  ii.  6,  12.  cufypovelv  here  means  the  exercise  of  a  control  over  youthful  and 
worldly  lusts. 

j  Also  in  Plato  (see  the  Republic,  iv.)  wisdom,  aoipia,  takes  the  rank  elsewhere  assigned 
to  prudence,  (f>puv7]aic,  among  the  cardinal  virtues.  Aristotle  (in  the  Greater  Ethics,  i.  35) 
makes  a  distinction  thus :  wisdom  relates  to  the  eternal  and  the  divine ;  prudence  to  what 
s  useful  to  man.     'H  piv  oo<pia  nep\  to  did'iov  koI  rb  delov,  fj  6e  fpovrjaic  Tepl  rb  vv/ityepov 


THE   CARDINAL   VIRTUES.  44b 

wisdom  and  prudence,*  of  which  the  first  relates  to  the  choice  of  proper 
objects  of  pursuit,  and  the  second  to  the  choice  of  suitable  means  for 
their  attainment;  and  both  are  blended  in  one  idea,  when  everything  is 
employed  as  means  for  the  all-comprehensive  object  of  life,  the  realization 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,f  and  when  Christian  wisdom  is  conceived  of  as 
so  shaping  and  controlling  the  life,  that  it  may  contribute  as  a  whole  and 
in  all  its  subordinate  relations  to  the  advancement  of  the  divine  king- 
dom, according  to  the  position  of  each  individual ;  and  thus  what  is  in 
itself  an  object,  becomes  a  means  to  the  highest  object.  Christian  pru- 
dence, which  emanates  from  the  clear  undisturbed  survey  of  a  wisdom 
that  controls  the  whole  life,  is  to  be  clearly  distinguished  from  that  which 
is  not  founded  on  such  a  basis,  but  would  proudly  assume  a  separate 
standing  as  capable  of  regulating  the  conduct  independently  of  Christian 
wisdom — the  prudence  which  subserves  a  selfish  interest,  or  employs 
means  which  a  Christian  mind  cannot  approve,  or  one  which  places  more 
confidence  in  human  means  than  in  the  power  and  guidance  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  the  "  fleshly  wisdom,"  oofyia  oapiciitr),  which,  as  such,  is  opposed 
to  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the  disposition  produced  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  ;  2  Cor.  i.  12.  Paul  requires  the  union  of  a  matured  understanding 
and  a  childlike  disposition,  a  childlike  innocence,  1  Cor.  xiv.  20.  "  In 
malice  be  ye  children,  in  understanding  be  ye  men,"  even  as  Christ  en- 
joined his  disciples  to  unite  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent  and  the  harmless- 
ness  of  the  dove. 

Thus,  in  the  renovation  of  human  nature  by  the  divine  principle  of 
life — in  the  quickening  of  the  whole  life  by  the  principle  of  believing  and 
hoping  love,  we  find  the  three  fundamental  virtues,  which  were  regarded 
by  the  ancients  in  the  development  of  morals  as  forming  the  grand  out- 
lines of  moral  character.  Perseverance,  vnofiovr),  corresponds  to  manli- 
ness, dvdpeia,  which  last  term,  includes  both  courage  in  action  (the 
"  quit  you  like  men,"  "  be  strong,"  avdpi&odai,  Kparaiovedai,  1  Cor. 
xvi.  13,)  and  patience,  naicpodvp,ta,  under  sufferings  for  the  kingdom  of 

dvdpbnru.  This  corresponds  to  the  manner  in  which  Aristotle  marks  off  tho  department 
of  ethics,  the  contrast  made  by  him  between  the  divine  and  the  purely  human.  But  such 
contrast  is  not  in  accordance  with  tho  Christian  teachings,  which  demand  that  every- 
thing human  should  be  referred  to  the  eternal  and  the  divine,  and  the  "  useful  to  man," 
avfi<j>ipov  uvdpuKCf),  is  grounded  on  this.  The  true  prudence,  which  includes  wisdom, 
is  that  which  from  the  eternal  and  the  divine  gives  the  direction  to  the  whole  life,  and 
forms  its  plan  accordingly. 

*  To  ootyia  is  attributed  the  "walking  circumspectly,"  d/cpipuc  irepinaTelv,  careful  ex- 
amination relative  to  one's  conduct  in  social  life,  that  a  man  may  discern  on  every  occasion 
what  is  agreeable  to  the  will  of  the  Lord,  and,  under  difficult  circumstances,  may  choose 
the  right  opportunity  for  accomplishing  what  is  good,  the  "  redeeming  the  time,"  e^ayopd- 
&odai  tov  naipbv,  Eph.  v.  15.  Hoipta  would  be  shown  in  the  intercourse  of  Christians  with 
heathens,  in  avoiding  whatever  would  give  them  offence,  and  so  regulating  the  conduct 
according  to  circumstances,  as  would  be  best  fitted  to  overcome  their  prejudices  against 
Christianity,  and  recommeud  it  to  their  regard. 

\  From  this  point  of  view  Christ  represents  all  Christian  virtues  under  the  form  of 
prudence.     See  Life  of  Christ,  273-77. 


446  THE    CARDINAL   VIRTUES. 

God  ; — (this  latter  idea,  from  its  connexion  with  the  Christian  views  of 
total  dependence  on  God,  and  of  the  imitation  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
Who  by  his  sufferings  conquered  the  kingdom  of  evil,  stands  out  in  more 
direct  contrast  to  the  principles  of  ancient  heathenism.)  Wisdom,  aocpia 
corresponds  to  prudence,  (ppovrjoic,  and  moderation,  oufypoovvn.  Of  the 
ancient  cardinal  virtues  then,  there  remains  only  righteousness,  dwaioovvn', 
yet  what  is  generally  intended  by  Paul  under  this  name,  does  not  naturally 
belong  to  this  place,  since  it  bears  no  correspondence  to  the  more  re- 
stricted sense  of  righteousness,  but,  according  to  the  Hellenist  phraseol- 
ogy, is  put  for  the  whole  of  moral  perfection  founded  in  piety.  But  the 
prominence  given  to  the  idea  of  righteousness  by  the  ancients  is  closely 
connected  with  that  which  essentially  distinguishes  their  moral  develop- 
ment from  that  of  Christianity,  namely,  their  practice  of  considering  civil 
life  as  the  highest  form  of  human  development  which  includes  all  others 
in  it,  and  the  State  as  the  condition  adapted  for  the  complete  realization 
of  the  highest  good.*  As  now  by  realizing  the  idea  of  a  kingdom  of  God, 
morality  was  freed  from  this  limitation,  was  exalted  and  widened  in  its 
application  to  all  mankind,  became  transformed  into  a  divine  life  in 
human  form  ;  and  as  it  is  the  Love  of  God  which  manifests  itself  as  the 
holy  and  redeeming  characteristic  of  this  kingdom,  it  follows  that,  in  the 
divine  life  of  this  kingdom,  love  occupies  the  place  that  in  the  view  of 
antiquity  was  held  by  righteousness,  so  that,  as  Aristotle  and  Plato 
traced  back  all  the  cardinal  virtues  to  the  idea  of  righteousness,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  Grecian  proverb,  righteousness  included  in  itself  all  other 
virtues  ;f  so  according  to  Paul,  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law,  includes 
and  originates  all  other  virtues,  and  is,  in  short,  the  sum  and  substance  of 
perfection.^  And  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  4,  5,  he  represents  all  the  peculiar  acts 
of  the  leading  Christian  virtues  as  so  .many  modes  of  love.§  Love  is  dis- 
creet, patient,  persevering,  always  chooses  what  is  becoming,  is  all  things 
to  all  men,  and  thus  shows  itself  to  be  true  prudence.  The  idea  of  right- 
eousness is  not  excluded,  for  all  the  acts  of  love  may  be  conceived  as  de- 
termined by  a  regard  to  right ;  for  love  is  not  capricious  but  conforma- 
ble to  law ;  it  acknowledges  and  respects  those  human  relations  which 
are  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  and  gives  to  every  one  what  his  position 
in  society  demands.  In  Rom.  xiii.  7,  Coloss.  iv.  1,  love  is  certainly  to  be 
regarded  as  the  animating  principle  in  the  performance  of  the  "just  and 
equal,"  dUaiov  ical  loov,  which  may  therefore  be  considered  as  only  one 
mode  of  the  operation  of  love. 

Since  Paul  considered  faith  as  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  it  follows,  that  the  immediate  relntion  of  each  individual  to  the 
Redeemer  was  in  his  view  of  primary  importance,  and  the  idea  of  fellow- 

*  Tho  opinion  of  those  who  attribute  to  the  State  such  an  importance,  and  would  re- 
gard it  as  the  perfect,  final  form  for  the  realization  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  derived  from 
unchristian  premises,  and  leads  to  anti-Christian  conclusions. 

f  iv  6e  diKaioovvri  avVkri^v  nua'  aperr)  evi.     Aristot.  Eth.  Nicomach.  lib.  v.  0.  3. 

X  cvvdeopoc  T7/j  TtXeioTTiTos.  Coloss.  iii.  14        §  As  Aug. :  afifectus  quosdam  amons. 


IDEA    OF   THE    CHURCH.  447 

ship,  the  idea  of  the  Church,  was  deducible  from  it.     Through  faith  each 
one  entered  for  himself  into  fellowship  with  the  Redeemer,  partook  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  the  new  principle  of  life,  and  became  a  child  of  God,  a 
temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     The  knowledge  of  God  has  heen  rendered 
attainable  to  all  through  Christ,  for  in   him  God  has  manifested  himself 
in  the  most  complete  and  to  the  human  mind  the  only  conceivable  manner, 
has  communicated  himself  to  our  race  through  Christ,  the  founder  of 
reconciliation,  the  author  of  a  new  filial  relatio'n  of  man  to  God.  Through 
his  mediation  tire  whole  Christian  life  becomes  acceptable  to  God,  by  a 
reference  to  him  who  is  always  the  sole  worthy  object  of  the  divine  good 
pleasure,  and  from  whom  that  good  pleasure  is  extended  to  all  who  enter 
into  spiritual  fellowship  with  him.     To  this  mediation,  which  is  always 
presupposed  as  a  matter  of  Christian  consciousness,  to  this  production  of 
the  whole  Christian  life  through  consciousness   of  redemption   received 
from   Christ,  relate  the  Pauline  expressions,  "  God,the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ'''' — "  doing  all  in  the  name  of  Christ  to  the  glory  of 
God" — "  giving  thanks  to  God  through  Christ" — "  praying  to -God" — 
"  all  things  in   Christ" — "  in  the  name  of  Christ" — "  through  Christ" 
— the  prepositions  in  which  phrases  can  be  deprived  of  their  strict  mean- 
ing only  by  an   utter  misconception  of  the  Pauline  connexion  of  ideas. 
Although  the  high  priesthood  of  Christ,  and  the  universal  priesthood  of 
all  believers,  are  expressions  not  found  in  Paul's  writings,  yet  from  what 
has  been  said,  the  ideas  implied  in  them  lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  his 
religious  conceptions.     Thus  with  Paul  there  is,  unquestionably,  an  im- 
mediate reference  of  religious  knowledge  and  experience  to  Christ  as  the 
only  fountain-head,   from  whom  everything  else   is  derived.     Hence,  he 
could  treat  of  the  nature  of  Christian  faith  in  the  eleven  first  chapters  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  without  introducing  the  idea  of  the  Church. 
But  the  consciousness  of  divine  life  received  from  Christ,  is  necessarily 
followed  by  the  recognition  of  a  communion  which  embraces  all  mankind, 
and  passes  beyond  the  boundaries  of  earthly  existence,  the  consciousness 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  Spirit  producing  and  animating  this  communion 
— the  consciousness  of  the  unity  of  the  divine  life  shared  by  all  believers, 
a  unity  which  counterbalances  all  the  other  differences  existing  among 
mankind,   as  had  been  already  manifested   at  the  first  promulgation  of 
Christianity,  when  the  most  marked  contrarieties  arising  either  from 
religion,  national  peculiarities,  or  mental  culture,  were  reconciled,  and 
the  persons  whom  they  had  kept  at  a  distance  from  each  other  became 
united  in  vital  communion.     To  the  extraordinary  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity in  relation  to  these  contrarieties,  Paul  bears  witness  when  he  says, 
M  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.     For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 
There  was  in  this  respect  no  difference  whether  a  member  of  the  Church 
was  Jew  or  Greek  (in  his  descent  or  in   his  former  religion),  slave  or 
freeman,  male  or  female,  for  all  were  in  communion  with  Christ  as  ona 


448  IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

person,  there  was  in  all  the  one  life  of  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  26-28.*  The  con- 
sciousness of  communion  with  the  Redeemer  cannot  exist  without  the 
recognition  of  the  existence  of  the  community  of  believers  animated  by- 
one  Spirit,  who  belong  as  his  body  to  him  the  head,  under  whose  con- 
tinued influence  alone  it  can  grow  to  maturity,  and  in  which  all  believers 
are  members  one  of  another.  The  body  of  Christ  is  the  Church,  the 
eKKXrjfjla  deov  or  Xpiarov.f  This  communion  is  formed  and  developed 
on  the  same  foundation  as  the  Christian  life  or  the  temple  of  God  in  each 
individual,  namely  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Redeemer,  1  Cor.  iii.  11.  Hence 
the  image  so  frequently  used  by  Paul  to  represent  the  church  as  a  building 
which  is  gradually  reared  on  this  foundation,  Ephes.  ii.  20 ;  and  his 
application  of  the  term  "to  build,"  "  to  edify,"  olKodopelv, to  designate 
whatever  contributes  to  the  furtherance  of  Christian  life.  The  principle 
from  which  this  communion  springs,  always  continues  to  be  the  bond  of 
its  union.  Paul,  in  treating  of  this  unity,  adduces  as  plain  marks  of  its 
origin  from  within,  (Ephes.  iv.  4,)  the  one  spirit  which  animates  this  one 
body,  the  one  object  of  heavenly  blessedness  to  which  all  are  called,  the 
one  faith  in  one  God,  whom  through  Christ  they  have  acknowledged  as 
the  Father  of  all,  with  whom  through  Christ  and  the  Spirit  imparted  by 
him,  they  are  connected  most  intimately,  so  that  he  rules  over  them 
with  his  all-guiding,  all-protecting  might,  pervades  them  all  with  his 
efficacious  power,  and  dwells  in  all  by  his  animating  Spirit — and  the 
one  Redeemer,  whom  they  all  acknowledge  as  their  Lord,  and  to  whom 
they  were  dedicated  by  baptising  The  consecrated  people,  under  the 
Old  Testament  form  of  the  Theocracy,  constituted  a  contrast  to  the 
heathen  nations,  which  was  now  transferred  with  a  more  spiritual  and 
internal  character  to  the  community  of  believers.  They  retained  the 
predicates  dyioi  and  f]ytaajj,evoi,  the  holy,  consecrated  people,  in  reference 
to  the  objective  consecration  founded  on  redemption,  and  their  objective 
contrariety  to  the  profane,  the  "  world,"  koo\loq  ;  but  yet  the  subjective 

*  In  Coloss.  iii.  11,  Paul  notices  particularly  the  contrast  between  the  civilized  and 
uncivilized,  the  Greek  being  the  most  striking  example  of  the  former  class,  and  the 
Scythian  of  the  latter.  In  his  language  lies  a  prophetic  intimation  that  Christianity 
would  reach  the  rudest  tribes,  and  impart  a  new  divine  principle  of  life,  the  mainspring 
of  all  sound  mental  culture. 

f  This  certainly  is  no  abstract  representation,  but  a  truly  living  reality.  If  in  all  the 
widely-spread  Christian  communities,  amidst  all  the  diversity  of  human  peculiarities  ani- 
mated by  the  same  spirit,  only  the  consciousness  of  this  higher  unity  and  communion 
were  retained,  as  Paul  desired,  this  would  be  the  most  glorious  appearance  of  the  one 
Christian  church,  in  which  the  kingdom  of  God  represents  itself  on  earth ;  and  no  out- 
ward constitution,  no  system  of  episcopacy,  no  council,  still  less  any  organization  by  the 
State,  which  would  substitute  something  foreign  to  its  nature,  could  render  the  idea  of  a 
Christian  church  more  real  or  concrete. 

\  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  "  one  baptism,"  Iv  ^a-nnajia,  refers  to  unity  in  the 
outward  institution  of  baptism,  which  would  be  here  quite  irrelevant.  All  the  marks  of 
unity  here  mentioned  manifestly  relate  to  the  same  thing,  to  which  the  unity  of  faith  also 
relates. 


IDEA   OP  THE   CHURCH.  449 

consecration  aiising  from  the  development  of  the  divine  principle  of  life, 
was  necessarily  founded  on  the  former,  and  inseparable  from  it — even  as 
justification  and  sanctification  are  connected  with  one  another.  They 
retained  also  the  predicate  "  called,"  kXt]to\  as  those  who  were  called 
by  the  grace  of  God  to  a  participation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  eternal 
happiness ;  and  this  calling  is  not  to  be  considered  merely  as  outward, 
by  virtue  of  the  external  publication  of  the  gospel,  but  agreeably  to  its 
design,  and  as  the  very  idea  imports,  the  external  is  to  be  thought  of  in 
connexion  with  the  internal,  the  outward  publication  of  the  gospel  with 
the  efficacious  inward  call  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  so  that  hence  the  idea  of 
kXtjtoI  coincides  with  that  of  believers  who  really  belong  in  heart  to 
Christ.  In  general,  Paul  considers  the  outward  and  the  inward,  the  idea 
and  the  appearance,  in  all  these  relations,  as  intimately  connected,  the  con- 
fession as  an  expression  of  faith,  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  the  being  in  Christ  as  a 
reality,  the  being  a  professed  Christian  as  a  sign  of  inward  communion 
with  the  Redeemer,  2  Cor.  v.  17  ;  and  thus  also  the  Church  as  the  out- 
ward exhibition  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  fellowship  truly  established  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  The  language  in  which  he  addresses  individual 
churches  is  conformable  to  these  views.  When  Paul  proceeds  from  this 
agreement  of  the  inward  and  the  outward,  and  regards  that  which  appears 
outwardly  as  one  with  the  divine  reality  which  should  be  expressed  in 
it,  we  must  never  forget  how  emphatically  he  opposes  every  kind  of  ex- 
ternalising of  religion,  which  he  looked  upon  as  something  belonging  to 
the  Jewish  stand-point — how  he  represents  the  divine  life  as  developed 
in  every  individual  from  within,  through  the  faith  that  refers  immediately 
to  Christ  himself.     Gal.  iii.  5. 

But  though  in  general  the  apostle  sets  out  from  this  point  of  view, 
yet  it  could  not  escape  his  observation  that  not  all  who  outwardly  repre- 
sented themselves  as  members  of  the  church,  were  really  in  the  true  sense 
members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  This  distinction  he  does  not  make  in  the 
oiiylnal  idea  of  the  church,  since  it  is  not  naturally  deducible  from  it,  but 
must  be  considered  as  something  incongruous  and  morbid,  and  not  to  be 
known  excepting  by  observation,  unless  we  refer  it  to  the  directly  inevi- 
table disorders  that  in  the  development  of  the  visible  church  arise  from 
the  reaction  of  sin.  Certain  experiences  of  this  kind  forced  the  distinction 
upon  him ;  in  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  he  declares  that  those  who  professed  Christianity 
outwardly,  and  represented  themselves  as  members  of  the  church,  but 
whose  conduct  was  at  variance  with  the  requirements  of  Christianity,  could 
have  no  part  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  followed,  therefore,  that  they 
were  already,  on  earth,  excluded  by  their  disposition  from  that  kingdom, 
from  that  communion  of  the  faithful  and  redeemed  which,  strictly  speak- 
ing, constitutes  the  Church.  In  this  passage,  he  treats  of  cases  in  which  the 
foreign  elements  which  had  mingled  with  the  outward  manifestation  of  the 
church,  might  be  easily  detected  and  expelled  by  the  judgment  of  the 
Christian  community  for  the  preservation  of  its  purity ;  for  such  marks  of 
an  unchristian  course  of  life  are  here  mentioned,  as  are  notorious  and  ap- 


450  IDEA    OF   THE   CHURCH. 

parent  to  every  one.  But  an  unchristian  disposition,  a  deficiency  of  faith 
working  by  love,  might  exist,  without  being  manifested  by  outward  signs 
which  would  be  as  easily  understood  as  in  the  former  case ;  and  here  the 
eeparation  of  the  elements  that  corresponded  to  the  idea  of  the  church 
from  those  that  were  incongruous,  could  not  be  so  accurately  made.  We 
learn  this  from  Paul  himself,  in  2  Tim.  ii.  ]  9,  20,  where  he  contrasts  with  the 
apostates  from  Christian  truth,  those  who  constituted  the  firm  foundation 
of  God's  house,  and  who  wore  the  impress  of  this  seal,  "  The  Lord  know- 
eth  them  that  are  his,"  and  "  Let  every  one  that  nameth  the  name  of 
Christ  depart  from  iniquity."  "  In  a  great  house  there  are  not  only 
vessels  of  gold  and  vessels  of  silver,  but  also  of  wood  and  of  earth  ;  and 
some  to  honor,  and  some  to  dishonor.  The  great  house  is  here  the  visible 
Church  ;  in  it  are  those  who  are  members  only  in  appearance  by  an  external 
superficial  union,  without  really  belonging  to  it  by  their  disposition,  and 
who,  on  account  of  their  connexion  with  it  reckoned  by  the  Lord  to  be 
his,  "  the  vessels  to  dishonor,"  are  to  be  distinguished  from  those  who, 
united  in  heart  to  the  church,  "the  vessels  to  honor,"  in  order  that  they 
may  be  preserved  as  such,  avoid  all  sin,  and  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord 
without  hypocrisy.  He  here  intimates  that  the  line  of  distinction  between 
the  genuine  and  the  spurious  members  of  the  church,  can  be  drawn  only 
by  God  who  knows  the  hidden  disposition.  Accordingly,  in  the  applica- 
tion of  the  idea  of  the  visible  church,  the  distinction  arises  between  the 
collective  body  of  those  in  whom  the  appearance  corresponds  to  what  is 
internal  and  invisible,  and  those  who  belong  to  the  church  in  appearance, 
without  having  internally  any  part  in  it. 

Since  the  Church,  as  the  body  of  Christ  not  merely  lays  claim  to  a 
part  of  the  life  of  its  members,  but  must  embrace  the  whole  as  belong- 
ing to  the  Redeemer,  and  as  animated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  source 
of  life  to  the  church,  it  follows  that  the  care  for  the  promotion  of  the 
good  of  the  whole  is  committed  not  merely  to  certain  officers  and  per- 
Bons,  but  all  the  members  are  bound  together  as  organs  of  that  Spirit  by 
whom  Christ,  as  the  governing  Head,  animates  each  individual  member, 
and  thus  mutually  united,  are  to  cooperate  for  the  same  object;  Eph.  iv. 
16.  Thus,  accordingly,  it  is  the  duty  of  each  one  to  consider  the  position 
in  which  God  has  placed  him  by  his  natural  character,  his  peculiar  train- 
ing, and  his  social  relations,  as  that  which  determines  the  mode  in  which 
he  may  most  effectually  labor  for  this  end.  As  all  natural  abilities  are  to 
be  consecrated  as  forms  of  manifestation  for  the  divine  life,  so  the  Holy 
Spirit,  while  animating  the  whole,  appropriates  each  individual  character, 
and  gives  to  each  one  his  special  gifts  by  which  he  is  ordained  to  pro- 
mote the  general  good,  according  to  his  endowments  and  opportunities. 
Here  we  have  the  idea  of  charism,  which  has  been  already  explained.* 
Without  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  charisms  as  the  necessary  manifesta- 
tions and  signs  of  his  continued  efficacious  presence  iu  the  collective  body 

*  See  page  430. 


BAPTISM.  451 

of  believers,  the  Church  (which  is  the  continued  revelation  of  the  divine 
life  in  human  form  proceeding  from  the  glorified  Saviour)  cannot  exist ; 
1  Cor.  xii.  By  the  spirit  of  love  animating  the  whole,  the  charisms  of  all 
the  individual  members,  forming  reciprocal  complements  to  each  other, 
are  conducted  to  the  promotion  of  one  object,  the  perfecting  of  the  whole 
body  of  Christ ;  as  Paul  has  so  admirably  represented  in  ]  Cor.  xii. 

/Since  the  Church  is  no  other  than  the  outward  visible  representation 
of  the  inward  communion  of  believers  with  the  Redeemer  and  with  one 
another,  answering  to  this  twofold  element  of  the  fellowship,  both  in  re- 
spect to  its  inward  nature  and  its  outward  manifestation,  the  ordinances 
of  Baptism  and  the  Supper  were  instituted  as  outward  visible  signs  to 
represent  as  actually  existing  the  facts  in  which  the  essence  of  this  fel- 
lowship rests.  Baptism  denotes  the  confession  of  dependence  on  Christ 
and  the  entrance  into  communion  with  him ;  and  hence,  the  appropria- 
tion of  all  which  Christ  promises  to  those  who  stand  in  such  a  relation  to 
him;  it  is  the  putting  on  Christ,  in  whose  name  baptism  is  adminis- 
tered,Van  expression  which  includes  in  it  all  we  have  said  ;  Gal."  iii.  27. f 
As  communion  with  Christ  and  the  whole  Christian  life  has  a  special 
reference  to  the  appropriation  of  those  two  great  events,  his  redeeming 
sufferings  and  his  i-esurrection,J  Paul,  alluding  to  the  form  in  which  bap- 
tism was  then  administered,  and  by  this  illustrating  the  idea  of  baptism, 
explains  the  outward  act  by  a  reference  to  these  two  events.§  The  two- 
fold relation  of  man  to  the  former  views  of  life  which  he  had  renounced, 
and  to  those  new  ones  which  he  had  embraced,  is  here  signified — enter- 
ing into  fellowship  with  the  death  of  Christ,  into  a  believing  appropria- 
tion of  the  work  of  redemption  accomplished  by  his  death,  dying  with 
him  in  spirit  to  the  world  in  which  one  has  hitherto  lived ;  mortifying 
self,  as  it  heretofore  existed,  and  by  faith  in  his  resurrection  as  a  pledge 
of  resurrection  to  an  eternal  divine  life  in  a  transformed  personality, 
rising  to  a  new  life  devoted  no  longer  to  the  world  but  to  him  alone ; 
Rom.  vi.  4.  In  accordance  with  this  train  of  thought,  Paul  terms  bap- 
tism, a  baptism  into  the  death  of  Christ.  And  for  the  same  reason,  he 
could  also  call  it  a  baptism  into  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  But  this  lat- 
ter reference  presupposes  the  former  ;  the  latter,  in  fact,  includes  the 
former.  From  communion  with  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  the  new  re- 
lation follows  of  sonship  to  God,  of  filial  communion  with  God,  Gal.  iii. 
26  ;  and  the  participation  in  the  spirit  of  a  new  divine  life  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  communicated  by  Christ.  It  is  Christ  who  imparts  the  true  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  of  which  water-baptism  is  only  the  symbol,  and  this 

*  On  the  meaning  of  the  formula,  "to  baptize  in  the  name  of  any  one,"  see  the  remarks 
of  Dr.  Bindseil  in  the  Sludien  und  Kritiken,  1832,  part  ii. 

\  Paul  in  Gal.  iii.  27,  might  have  said,  "All  of  you  who  have  believed  in  Christ"  But 
he  said  instead  of  this,  "as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,"  since  he 
viewed  baptism  as  the  objective  sign  and  seal  of  the  relation  to  Christ  into  which  man  en- 
tered by  faith. 

\  See  page  421.  §  Page  160. 


452  BAPTISM. 

immersion  in  the  Spirit  makes  precisely  the  difference  between  Christian 
baptism  and  that  of  John.  Therefore,  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ  is 
at  the  same  time,  necessarily,  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  one  reference  cannot  be  thought  of  without  the  three- 
fold. In  virtue  of  the  connexion  of  ideas  before  noticed,  entrance  into 
communion  with  Christ  is  indissolubly  connected  with  entrance  into  com- 
munion with  the  body  of  which  He  is  the  head,  the  whole  assemblage  of 
believers.  "  By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  hence  are 
incorporated  with  it  through  baptism  ;"  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  As  entrance  into 
communion  with  the  Redeemer  at  baptism  implies  a  cessation  from  com- 
munion with  sin — the  putting  on  of  Christ  implies  the  putting  off  of  the 
old  man — the  rising  with  Christ  implies  the  dying  with  Christ — the  trans- 
formation by  the  new  Spirit  of  holiness  implies  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  cleansing  from  sin — entrance  into  communion  with  the  body  of 
Christ  implies  a  departure  from  communion  with  a  sinful  world ;  so  the 
distinction  arises  of  a  positive  and  a  negative  significance  in  baptism. 
Hence  the  washing  away  of  sin,  sanctification  and  justification,  are 
classed  together  at  baptism;  1  Cor.  vi.  11*  What  we  have  remarked 
respecting  Paul's  idea  of  the  church,  the  relation  of  the  inward  to  the 
outward,  the  ideal  to  the  visible,  will  also  apply  to  baptism.  As  Paul, 
in  speaking  of  the  church,  presupposes  that  the  outward  church  is  the 
visible  community  of  the  redeemed ;  so  he  speaks  of  baptism  on  the  sup- 
position that  it  corresponded  to  its  idea,  that  all  that  was  inward,  what- 
ever belonged  to  the  holy  rite  and  its  complete  observance,  accompanied 
the  outward;  hence  he  could  assert  of  outward  baptism  whatever  was 
involved  in  a  believing  appropriation  of  the  divine  facts  which  it  symbol- 
ized ;  whatever  must  be  realized  when  baptism  fully  corresponds  to  its 
original  design.  Thus  he  says,  that  all  those  who  had  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  had  entered  into  vital  communion  with  him,  Gal.  iii.  27  ;  language 
which  was  applicable  only  to  those  in  whom  the  inward  and  the  outward 
harmonised  as  the  idea  of  baptism  required.  Hence  also  he  calls  bap- 
tism the  bath  of  regeneration  and  of  renewal  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  Tit. 
iii.  5.  And  hence  he  says,  that  Christ  by  baptism  has  purified  the  whole 
church  as  a  preparation  for  that  perfect  purity  which  it  will  exhibit,  in 
that  perfection  to  which  the  Saviour  would  exalt  it ;  Eph.  v.  26.  And 
yet,  according  to  what  has  been  said  above,  it  is  certain  that  Paul  de- 
rives everything  from  faith.  If  any  one  had  wished  to  attribute  to  the 
power  of  an  outward,  sensible  ceremony, — an  element  belonging  to  the 
senses, — what  is  to  be  deduced  from  an  internal  appropriation  through 
faith,  Paul  would  have  applied  to  baptism  Avhat  he  said  of  circumcision, 
that  it  was  a  return  to  the  element  of  the  world,  a  putting  the  "  carnal," 

*  As  Paul  here  joins  the  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  iv  r<p  ovofian  tov  Kvptov,  and 
"  by  the  Spirit  of  God,"  ev  tgj  irvevfiari  tov  deov,  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  is  here  speak- 
ing of  subjective  sanctification,  by  the  communication  of  a  divine  principle  of  life,  as  weil 
as  of  objective  justification. 


the  lord's  supper.  453 

aapninbv,  in  the  place  of  the  "  spiritual,"  -nvev^anKov.  But  he  speaks,  in 
the  passages  we  have  quoted,  of  the  whole  of  the  Divine  transaction  in 
which  faith  is  included,  as  the  subjective  element  from  which  everything 
proceeds.  And  it  is  a  common  figure  of  speech,  to  state  one  principal 
element  for  the  sum  total  of  elements ;  in  this  instance,  the  most  outward 
is  adduced,  by  which  the  whole  is  brought  under  observation,  the  clos- 
ing point  of  the  whole,  which  presupposes  all  the  other  elements,  includ- 
ing the  most  internal. 

Relative  to  "the  Holy  Supper,  it  appears  from  Paul's  language  in 
1  Cor.  xi.  24,  that  he  considered  it  a  feast  in  commemoration  of  Christ's 
offering  his  life*  for  the  salvation  of  men,  and  of  all  the  benefits  accruing 
thereby  to  mankind.  According  to  his  explanation  of  the  words  of  the 
institution,  1  Cor.  xi.  26,  believers,  when  they  unitedly  celebrate  the  Last 
Supper  of  Christ  with  his  disciples,  are  gratefully  to  proclaim  wrhat  they 
owe  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  till  his  second  coming,  till  they  are  favored 
with  the  visible  presence  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  perfect  enjoyment  of 
all  that  his  redeeming  sufferings  have  gained  for  mankind.  Hence  be- 
lievers, in  united  praise  to  the  Lord  to  whose  redeeming  sufferings  they 
owe  their  salvation,  should  celebrate  the  Supper  as  a  pledge  of  their  con- 
stant communion  with  him,  till  that  communion  is  consummated  in  his 
immediate  presence.  Christ  further  designed,  as  Paul  teaches,  to  remind 
his  disciples  of  the  new  relation  or  covenant  established  by  his  sacrifice 
between  God  and  man,  which  is  naturally  connected  with  what  has  been 
already  mentioned ;  for  as  the  work  of  redemption  accomplished  by 
Christ's  sufferings  is  the  foundation  of  this  new  relation,  which  supersedes 
the  ancient  legal  economy,  its  connexion  with  the  institution  of  this  ordi- 
nance is  self-evident.  And  as  in  the  institution  of  the  Supper  there  are 
several  allusions  to  the  usages  practised  at  the  passover,  a  natural  point 
of  comparison  is  here  presented  between  the  establishment  of  the  earthly 
national  Theocracy,  which  was  accomplished  by  the  release  of  the  Jews 
from  earthly  bondage  and  their  formation  into  an  independent,  national 
communion, — and  the  establishment  of  an  universal  Theocracy  in  a  spirit- 
ual form,  which  consisted  in  releasing  its  members  from  the  spiritual 
bondage  of  sin,  and  their  formation  into  an  internally  independent  com- 
munity or  church  of  God.  If  this  subject  is  viewed  in  the  Pauline  spirit, 
it  will  be  evident,  that  all  this  can  be  properly  fulfilled  only  in  vital  com- 
munion with  the  Redeemer,  apart  from  which  nothing  in  the  Christian 
life  has  its  proper  significance ;  and  that  there  can  be  no  real  commemora- 
tion of  Christ's  redeeming  sufferings  except  in  vital  communion  with 
him.  The  solemn  remembrance  of  Christ's  sufferings  is  the  leading  idea 
in  this  holy  ordinance,  though  the  consciousness  of  communion  with  him 


*  That  this  was  the  leading  reference,  I  agree  with  what  Liicke  has  stated  in  his  Essay, 
De  duplicis  in  sacra  Ccena  Symboli  Aclusque  Sensu  ac  Ratione,  1837.  Yet  other  references 
appear  to  me  not  to  be  excluded,  but  to  be  originally  given  with  it,  and  to  be  naturally 
connected  with  it  and  founded  on  it. 


454  the  lord's  supper. 

is  necessarily  connected  with  it.  And  communion  with  Christ  neces- 
sarily presupposes  his  redeeming  sufferings,  and  the  personal  appropria- 
tion of  these.  Baptism,  as  baptism  into  the  death  of  Christ,  also  intro- 
duces believers  into  his  communion.  In  Baptism  they  put  on  Christ, 
just  as  in  the  Supper  they  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood. 

With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  Paul  conceived  of  the  relation 
of  the  outward  signs  to  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  we  must  not  for- 
get that  the  latter  are  here  considered  merely  as  having  been  given  for 
the  salvation  of  mankind.  Under  this  view  the  form  in  whicl)  he  quotes 
Christ's  words  is  important.  He  says,  "  This  cup  is  the  '  new  covenant, ' 
Kaivrj  diadrJKT],  which  was  established  by  the  shedding  of  my  blood." 
This  can  only  mean  :  The  cup  represents  to  you  in  a  sensible  manner  the 
institution  of  this  new  relation.  And  by  analogy  the  first  "  this  is,'' 
tov  to  eon,  must  be  interpreted:  "  It  represents  my  body."*.  True,  he 
immediately  afterwards  says  that  whoever  eats  or  drinks  in  an  un- 
worthy manner,  that  is,  with  a  profane  disposition,  uninterested  in  or 
not  recollecting  the  design  of  the  holy  ordinance,  so  that,  as  Paul  himself 
explains  it  in  v.  29,  he  does  not  distinguish  what  is  intended  to  represent 
the  body  of  Christ  from  common  food — that  such  a  one  sins  against  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  But  from  these  words  we  cannot  determine 
the  relation  in  which  the  bread  and  wine  were  considered  by  Paul  to 
stand  to  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  for  the  sinning  of  which  he  speaks, 
as  the  connexion  sIioavs,  consists  only  in  the  relation  of  the  communicant's 
disposition  to  the  holy  design  of  the  ordinance.  On  the  supposition  that 
only  a  symbolically  religious  meaning  was  attached  to  the  Supper,  this 
language  might  be  used  respecting  those  who  partook  of  it  merely  as  a 
common  meal.  And  what  he  afterwards  says,  that  whoever  partook  of 
the  Supper  unworthily,  partook  of  it  to  his  condemnation,  is  by  no  means 
decisive,  for  this  relates  only  to  the  religious  consciousness  of  the  indi- 
vidual. Whoever  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  a  profane  disposi- 
tion, without  being  penetrated  with  a  sense  of  the  holy  significance  of 
the  rite,  by  such  vain  conduct  passed  the  sentence  of  his  own  condemna- 
tion, and  exposed  himself  to  punishment.  Accordingly,  in  the  evils  which 
at  that  time  affected  the  church,  the  apostle  beheld  the  marks  of  divine 
punishment. 

*  Those  who  advocate  the  metaphorical  interpretation  of  the  expressions  used  in  the 
institution  of  the  Supper,  are  very  unjustly  charged  with  doing  violence  to  the  words,  by 
departing  from  the  literal  meaning.  If  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  circumstances  and 
relations  under  which  anything  is  said,  be  contrary  to  the  connexion  and  design  of  the 
discourse,  this  literal  interpretation  is  unnatural  and  forced.  And  this  is  certainly  the 
case  in  the  interpretation  of  these  words  of  our  Lord,  for  since  Christ  was  still  sensibly 
present  among  his  disciples  when  he  said  that  this  bread  was  his  body,  this  wine  was  his 
blood,  they  could  understand  him  as  speaking  only  symbolically,  if  he  added  no  further 
explanation.  Moreover,  they  were  accustomed  to  similar  symbolical  expressions  in  thoii 
intercourse  with  him ;  and  this  very  symbol  receives  its  natural  interpretation  from  an- 
other of  Christ's  discourses,  seethe  chapter  on  John's  doctrine ;  also  Life  of  Christ,  p. 
390  ;  and  Liicke's  Essay  referred  to  above. 


THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD.  455 

In  the  10th  chapter  of  the  same  Epistle,  the  apostle  speaks  of  the 
Lord's  Sapper,  and  declares  to  the  Corinthians  that  it  was  unlawful 
to  unite  a  participation  in  the  heathen  sacrifices  with  Christian  com- 
munion in  the  Holy  Supper.  He  points  out  that,  by  participating  in  the 
heathen  sacrifices,  they  would  relapse  into  fellowship  with  idolatry. 
These  sacrifices  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  heathen  religious  fellow- 
ship as  the  Jewish  sacrifices  to  the  fellowship  of  the  Jewish  cultus,  and 
as  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  religious  fellowship  of  Christianity.  And  in 
accordance  with  this  fact  he  says,  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?" — which  can  only 
mean  that  the  Supper  marks,  represents,  this  communion,  is  the  means 
of  appropriating  this  communion  ;  for  the  rite  is  here  viewed  as,  in  its 
totality,  corresponding  to  the  idea,  in  the  congruity  of  the  inward  with 
the  outward,  in  the  same  sense  as  when  Paul  says  that  as  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.*  As  to  the  two  other 
points  with  which  the  Lord's  Supper  is  here  compared  in  its  relation  to 
Christianity,  the  only  thing  essential  is  a  direction  for  the  conscience  in 
communion  ;  respecting  the  kind  of  communion  in  the  Supper  nothing 
more  can  be  ascertained  from  these  words. 

Since  the  Supper  represents  the  communion  with  Christ,  there  is  at 
the  same  time  involved  a  reference  to  the  communion  founded  upon  it  of 
believers  with  one  another  as  members  of  the  one  body  of  Christ.  With 
this  view  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  x.  17,  "  For  we  being  many  are  one  loaf  and 
one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  loaf;"  that  is,  as  we  all 
partake  of  one  loaf,  and  this  loaf  represents  to  ns  the  body  of  Christ,  so 
it  also  signifies  that  we  are  all  related  to  one  another  as  members  of  the 
one  body  of  Christ. f 

The  idea  of  the  Church  of  Christ  is  closely  connected  in  the  views  of 
Paul  with  that  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  former  is  the  particular 
idea,  which  must  be  referred  to  the  latter  as  the  more  general  and  com- 
prehensive one.  The  idea  of  the  church  is  subordinate  to  that  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  because  by  the  latter  is  denoted,  partly  the  whole  of  a 
series  of  historical  developments,  partly  a  great  assemblage  of  co-existent 
spiritual  creations.  The  first  meaning  leads  us  to  the  original  form  of  the 
idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  by  which  the  Christian  dispensation  was 
introduced  and  to  which  it  was  annexed.  The  universal  kingdom  of  God 
formed  from  within,  which  is  to  embrace  the  whole  human  race,  or  the 
union  of  all  mankind  in  one  community  animated  by  one  common  prin- 

*  The  older  Fathers  of  the  church  uot  illogieally  inferred,  that  there  was  a  bodily  par- 
ticipation of  Christ  at  Baptism  as  well  as  at  the  Supper. 

f  In  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  Supper  in  the  words  "  have  drunk 
into  one  Spirit,"  [«Y]  cv  nvev/ua  ltxo-inOt)n?v,  and  in  this  case  to  the  participation  in  the 
"one  Spirit,"  proceeding  from  spiritual  communion  with  the  Redeemer;  this  may  bo  also 
the  case  in  1  Cor.  x.  3,  4. 


456  THE  KINGDOM   OF   GOD. 

ciple  of  religion,  was  prepared  and  typified  by  the  establishment  and  de. 
velopment  of  a  national  communion,  distinguished  by  religion  as  the 
foundation  and  centre  of  all  its  social  institutions,  the  particular  Theocracy 
of  the  Jews.  The  kingdom  of  God  was  not  first  founded  by  Christianity 
as  something  entirely  new,  but  the  original  kingdom  of  God,  of  which 
the  groundwork  already  existed,  was  released  from  its  limitation  to  a 
particular  people  and  its  symbolical  garb  ;  it  was  transformed  from  being 
a  sensuous  and  external  economy  to  one  that  was  spiritual  and  internal ; 
and  no  longer  national,  it  assumed  a  form  that  was  destined  to  embrace 
the  whole  of  mankind ;  and  thus  it  came  to  pass,  that  faith  in  that  Re- 
deemer, whom  to  prefigure  and  to  prepare  for  was  the  highest  office  of 
Judaism,  was  the  medium  for  all  men  of  participating  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  apostle  everywhere  represents,  that  those  who  had  hitherto 
lived  excluded  from  all  historical  connexion  with  the  development  of 
God's  kingdom  among  mankind,  had  become,  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer, 
fellow-citizens  of  the  saints,  members  of  God's  household,  built  on  the 
foundation  laid  by  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone;  Eph.  ii.  19,  20.  The  same  fact  is  represented  by 
another  image,  that  of  the  original  root  of  the  stock  of  the  Theocracy  in 
Judaism,  in  Rom.  xi.  18.  Christianity,  then,  allied  itself  to  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  restoration  and  glorification  of  the  Theocracy,  Which  was  pre- 
ceded by  an  ever  increasing  sense  of  its  fallen  state  among  the  Jews. 
Those  who  clung  to  a  national  and  external  Theocracy,  looked  forward 
to  this  glorification  as  something  external,  sensuous,  and  national.  The 
Messiah,  they  imagined,  would  triumphantly  exalt,  by  a  divine  and 
miraculous  power,  the  depressed  Theocracy  of  the  Jews  to  a  visible  glory 
such  as  it  had  never  before  possessed,  and  establish  a  new,  and  exalted, 
unchangeable  order  of  things,  in  place  of  the  transitory  earthly  institu- 
tions which  had  hitherto  existed.  Thus  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah 
would  appear  as  the  perfected  form  of  the  Theocracy;  as  the  final  stage  in  the 
terrestrial  development  of  mankind,  exceeding  in  glory  everything  which 
a  rude  fancy  could  depict  under  sensible  images;  a  kingdom  in  which  the 
Messiah  would  reign  sensibly  present  as  God's  vicegerent,  and  order  all 
circumstances  according  to  his  will.  From  this  point  of  view,  therefore, 
the  reign  of  the  Messiah  would  appear  as  belonging  entirely  to  the  future ; 
the  present  condition  of  the  world  (the  al&v  ovrog,  oralcjv  novrjpbg),  with 
all  its  evils  and  defects,  would  be  set  in  opposition  to  that  future  golden 
age  (the  alcbv  fieXXcjv)  from  which  all  wickedness  and  evil  would  be 
banished.  But  in  accordance  with  a  change  in  the  idea  of  the  kingdom 
of  God,  a  different  construction  was  put  on  this  opposition  by  Chris- 
tianity ;  it  was  transformed  from  the  external  to  the  interna],  and  with- 
drawn from  the  future  to  the  present.  By  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  the 
kingdom  of  God  or  of  the  Messiah  is  already  founded  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  thence  developing  itself  outwards,  is  destined  to  bring  under 
its  control  all  that  belongs  to  man.  And  so  that  higher  order  of  things, 
which  to  the  Jewish  mind  was   placed  in  the  future,  has  already  com- 


THE  KINGDOM   OF   GOD.  457 

menced  with  the  divine  life  received  by  faith,  and  is  realized  in  principle. 
In  spirit  and  disposition  they  have  already  quitted  the  world  in  which 
evil  reigns ;  redemption  brings  with  it  deliverance  from  this  world  of 
evil,*  and  believers,  who  already  participate  in  the  spirit,  the  laws,  the 
powers,  and  the  blessedness  of  that  higher  world,  constitute  an  opposi- 
tion to  "  this  world,"  aluv  ovrog,  the  "  evil  world,"  aluv  novTjpog.  Such 
is  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  presented  by  the  apostle  as  realized,  in 
the  spirit  of  it,  on  earth ;  the  kingdom  of  Christ  coincides  with  the  idea 
of  the  church  existing  in  the  hearts  of  men,  the  invisible  church, f  the 
totality  of  the  operations  of  Christianity  on  mankind  ; — and  the  idea  of 
the  o/wv  ovto<;  is  that  of  the  ungodly  spirit  of  the  present  world  maintain- 
ing an  incessant  conflict  with  Christianity. 

But  as  we  have  already  remarked  in  reference  to  the  Christian  life 
generally,  as  founded  on  the  necessary  connexion  of  the  ideas  of  faith  and 
hope,  the  Pauline  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  necessarily  contains 
a  reference  to  the  future ;  for  as  the  Christian  life  of  the  individual  is 
developed  progressively  by  inward  and  outward  conflicts,  while  aiming 
at  that  perfection  which  is  never  attained  in  this  earthly  existence,  the 
same  thing  is  also  true  of  the  manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth,  which  comprehends  the  totality  of  the  Christian  life  diffused 
through  the  human  race.  The  knowledge  of  the  manifestation  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  necessarily  accompanied  by  a  recognition  of  this 
manifestation  as  still  very  obscure  and  imperfect,  and  by  no  means  cor- 
responding to  its  idea  and  real  nature.     Hence  the  idea  of  the  kingdom 

*  Deliverance  from  the  "  present  evil  world,"  tveord'c  aldv  izovripoc,  Decessarily  ac- 
companies redemption  from  sin.     See  Gal.  i.  4. 

|  This  is  the  "  Jerusalem  which  is  above,"  fj  uvu  'Iepovaah)/i,  the  mother  of 
believers;  Gal.  iv.  26.  Rothe  disputes  this  interpretation  (see  his  work  before  quoted, 
p.  290),  but  without  reason.  He  is  indeed  so  far  right,  that,  primarily,  something  future 
is  designated  by  it,  as  appears  from  its  being  contrasted  with  "  the  Jerusalem  which  now 
is  ;"  but  this  future  heavenly  Jerusalem,  which  at  a  future  time  is  to  be  revealed  in  its 
glory,  is  to  true  believers  something  already  present,  for  in  faith  and  spirit  and  inward 
life  they  belong  to  it;  while  the  earthly  Jerusalem  is,  for  them,  something  passed  away; 
they  are  dead  to  it,  and  are  separated  from  it.  From  this  it  follows  that  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem  stands  to  them  in  the  relation  of  a  mother ;  the  participation  of  the  divine 
life  by  which  they  are  regenerated,  and  which  represents  itself  in  them,  constitutes 
them  the  invisible  church.  The  perfect  development  of  this  life  belongs  to  the  future ; 
their  life  is  now  a  hidden  one ;  the  manifestation  of  it  does  not  fully  correspond  to  its  real 
nature.  Though  the  idea  of  the  invisible  church  is  not  expressed  in  this  distinct  form  by 
Paul,  yet  in  spirit  and  meaning  it  is  conveyed  in  the  above  expression,  as  well  as  in  the 
distinction  which  he  makes  in  2  Tim.  ii.  19,  20;  (see  p.  450),  and  when  he  forms  his  idea 
of  the  body  of  Christ  according  to  this  distinction,  it  entirely  coincides  with  that  of  the 
invisible  church.  Hence,  also,  this  idea  was  strikingly  developed  by  the  Reformation 
which  proceeded  from  the  Pauline  scheme  of  doctrine.  And  it  is  important  to  maintain 
it  firmly  against  ecclesiastical  sectarianism,  against  the  secularization  of  the  church, 
whether  under  the  form  of  Hierarchy,  of  Romanism,  or,  what  is  still  worse,  of  subordina- 
tion of  religion  to  political  objects,  the  supremacy  of  the  State  in  matters  of  religion, 
Bvzantinism. 


458  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD   IN   ITS 

of  God  in  its  realization,  can  only  be  understood  if  we  view  it  as  noT* 
presenting  the  tendency  and  germ  of  what  will  receive  its  accomplish- 
ment in  future,  and  this  accomplishment  Paul  represents  not  as  some- 
thing  which  will  spontaneously  arise  from  the  natural  development  of  the 
church,  but  as  produced,  like  the  founding  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  by 
an  immediate  intervention  of  Christ  himself.  Hence  the  various  applica- 
tions of  this  term.  Sometimes  it  denotes  the  present  form  assumed  by 
the  kingdom  of  God  among  mankind,  the  internal  kingdom,  which  is 
established  in  the  heart  by  the  gospel ;  sometimes  the  future  consumma- 
tion, the  perfected  form  of  the  victorious  and  all-transforming  kingdom 
•of  God  ;  at  other  times,  the  present  in  its  union  with  the  future  and  in 
reference  to  it.  The  conception  of  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
the  first  sense,  is  found  in  1  Cor.  iv.  20.  The  kingdom  of  God  does  not 
consist,  the  participation  of  it  is  not  shown,  in  what  we  eat  or  drink,  but 
in  the  power  of  the  life;  not  in  ostentatious  discourse,  as  in  the  Corin- 
thian church,  but  in  the  power  of  the  disposition;  Rom.  xiv.  17.  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  not  meats  and  drinks — its  blessings  are  not  external 
and  sensible,  but  internal,  by  possessing  which  we  prove  our  participa- 
tion in  it,  such  as  justification,  peace  in  the  inner  man,  and  a  sense  of  the 
blessedness  of  the  divine  life.*  The  reference  to  the  future  is  introduced 
where  he  speaks  of  the  reigning  of  believers,"  ovufiaoiXsveiv  "  with" 
Christ ;  and  where  he  says,  that  those  who,  although  they  have  received 
outward  baptism  and  made  an  outward  profession  of  Christianity,  yet 
contradict  it  by  the  course  of  their  lives,  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
God;  1  Cor.  vi.  10.  The  passage  in  1  Thess.  ii.  12,  where  Chrisiians  are 
called  upon  to  conduct  themselves  in  a  manner  worthy  of  that  God  who 
had  called  them  to  his  kingdom  and  glory,  has  certainly  a  reference  to 
the  future,  as  far  as  the  glory  of  this  kingdom  has  not  yet  appeared;  in 
2  Thess.  i.  5,  the  apostle  says  that  Christians,  as  they  already  belong  to 
this  kingdom,  fight  and  suffer  as  members  of  it,  shall  therefore  have  part 
in  it  when  it  shall  appear  in  its  consummation. 

This  requires  our  attentive  consideration.  At  the  time  of  which  we 
are  speaking,  the  church  comprised  the  whole  visible  form  of  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  everything  else  stood  in  opposition  to  it ;  and  yet  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  destined  to  universal  sovereignty, — to  appropriate  everything 
as  its  organ ;  as  everything  in  humanity  depends  upon  it,  the  kingdom 
of  God  must  stamp  its  impress  on  the  race  before  it  can  find  the  realiza- 

*  The  connexion  of  this  passage,  Rom.  xiv.  16,  appears  to  me  to  be  this:  Give  no 
occasion  for  the  good  which  you  possess  as  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (more  particu- 
larly in  the  present  instance,  Christian  freedom),  to  be  spoken  ill  of  by  others ;  for  it  is 
not  of  such  a  kind  that  you  need  be  afraid  of  losing  it ;  even  if  you  do  not  avail  your- 
selves of  your  Christian  freedom,  if  you  neither  eat  nor  drink  what  you  are  justified  in 
partaking  of  as  Christians,  as  free  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Your  good  is  one  that 
is  situated  within  you,  not  dependent  on  these  outward  things;  for  the  blessings  of  God's 
kingdom  are  not  outward,  or  objects  of  sense,  they  are  within  you;  they  consist  in  what 
is  godlike,  as  the  apostle  proceeds  to  specify. 


RELATION   TO   THE   UNIVERSE.  459 

tion  of  its  true  idea.  Such  an  universal  sovereignty  in  reserve  for  the 
kingdom  of  God,  Paul  certainly  acknowledged  ;  but  the  thought  was 
then,  and  must  have  continued  to  be,  not  familiar  to  his  mind,  that  such 
a  supremacy  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  formed  by  that  develop- 
ing process  which  Christ  compares  to  leaven,  through  the  natural  con- 
nexion of  causes  and  effects  under  the  Divine  guidance.  It  \va<,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  the  necessary  and  natural  view  for  this  stage  in  the 
development  of  Christianity,  that  this  supremacy  of  the  kingdom  would 
be  brought  about,  under  altogether  different  conditions  from  those  of 
earthly  existence,by  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  Hitherto,  therefore, 
there  could  be  no  visible  appearance  of  the  kingdom  of  God  beyond  the 
pale  of  the  church.  Another  relation  of  the  ideas  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  of  the  church  to  one  another,  must  be  formed  when  the  kingdom  of 
God  had  more  effectually  exerted  its  power  as  leaven  in  the  development 
of  the  human  race — when  by  a  natural  instrumentality,  preparation  had 
been  made  for  what,  to  Paul,  appeared  as  something  that  must  be  real- 
ized in  an  immediate  manner  by  a  new  external  event — when  the  king- 
dom of  God,  which  entered  the  world  first  of  all  in  the  form  of  the 
church,  had  appropriated  to  itself  all  other  things  Avhich  belonged  to  the 
the  organism  of  human  life.  Then  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in 
its  earthly  form  of  appearance,  would  become  more  extended  than  that 
of  the  church,  which  at  this  time  could  not  have  taken  place- 
But  it  is  not  merely  in  reference  to  the  series  of  events  which  are  ad- 
vancing to  their  completion  that  the  external  form  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  presented  as  part  of  a  great  whole  ;  there  is  another  consideration 
which  is  naturally  connected  with  this  view.  ■  As  the  church  is  a  semi- 
nary for  the  heavenly  community,  in  which  its  members  are  training  for 
their  perfect  development,  it  appears  even  here  below  as  a  part  of  a  di- 
vine kingdom  not  confined  to  the  human  race,  but  comprehending  also  a 
higher  spiritual  world,  where  that  archetype,  to  the  realization  of  which 
mankind  are  now  tending,  is  already  realized.  The  knowledge  of  God, 
according  to  the  comprehensive  views  of  Christianity,  is  represented  not 
merely  as  the  common  vitalizing  principle  of  the  human  race,  but  as  a 
bond  by  which  mankind  are  united  with  all  the  orders  of  beings  in  a 
higher  spiritual  world,  in  one  divine  community,  according  to  that  uni- 
versal idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  which  is  presented  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  Thus  Paul  represents  "  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  not  merely  as  the  common  Father  of  mankind,  but  also  as  Him 
after  whom  the  whole  community  in  heaven  and  on  earth  are  named  ; 
Eph.  iii.  15.  By  sin  men  were  estranged,  not  only  from  God,  but  from 
that  higher  spiritual  world  in  which  the  kingdom  of  God  is  already  real- 
ized. As  Christ,  when  he  reconciled  men  to  God,  united  them  to  one 
another  in  a  divine  community,  broke  down  the  wall  of  partition  (Eph.  ii. 
14)  which  separated  them,  and  joined  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  one  body, 
which  is  animated  by  himself  as  their  head  ;  so  also  while  men  are 
brought  back  to  communion  with  God,  they  are  connected  with  all  those 


460  DOCTKINE  .OF   THE   LOGOS. 

who  have  already  attained  that  degree  of  perfection  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
to  which  the  church  on  earth  is  aspiring.  In  this  respect  Paul  says,  that 
Christ,  in  making  peace,  has  united  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  in 
one  divine  kingdom  ;  Coloss.  i.  20.* 

We  here  come  to  the  important  idea  of  a  pre-existent  Divine  Being, 
who,  through  Christ,  became  manifested  in  time — the  idea,  to  designate 
which  we  may,  for  brevity's  sake,  use  the  term  Logos,  though  this  dis- 
tinct term  for  designating  such  an  idea  belongs  only  to  a  peculiar  doc- 
trinal type  of  the  New  Testament.  Also  on  this  subject  we  must  main- 
tain, in  opposition  to  the  arbitrary,  unhistorical,  destructive  theories  of  a 
certain  mode  of  thinking  in  our  day,  which  is  necessitated  to  find  in  all 
things  only  the  human  spirit  seating  itself  in  its  self-reflection  on  the 
throne  of  God,  that  not  a  foreign  element  from  without  was  introduced 
in  the  development  of  the  doctrine  that  proceeded  from  Christ — also,  that 
not  from  without,  through  many  influences,  has  that  been  developed  at 
which  the  idea  of  Christianity  aims,  and  for  which  Christ  only  gave  the 
first  impulse ;  but  we  must  here  deduce  everything  from  the  original 

*  The  passage  in  Col.  i.  20,  certainly  has  special  difficulties  which  we  shall  consider  fur 
ther  on.  Although  the  view  taken  by  Paul  of  the  world  of  spirits  is  represented  to  us  and 
more  fully  developed  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  which  may  be  ex- 
plained by  their  being  written  in  the  later  period  of  his  ministry,amid  the  opposing  opinions 
that  had  then  arisen ;  yet  this  cannot  be  considered  as  a  mark  of  anything  uu-Pauliue,  for 
it  can  be  easily  proved  that  such  a  view  of  the  various  orders  in  the  world  of  spirits  was 
always  held  by  the  apostle,  and  thai  the  relation  of  men  to  a  world  of  good  and  evil  spirits 
was  always  present  to  his  mind;  Rom.  viii.  38,  "angels,  principalities,  powers,"  uyyeXoi, 
upxal,  dvvufietc,  of  this  or  the  other  world  ;  1  Cor.  iv.  9  ;  xii.  4.  Also  in  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  by 
the  universality  with  which  he  expresses  himself,  he  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  mean  only 
the  "  rule,  authority,  and  power  "  of  this  world,  but  must,  to  say  the  least,  refer  at  the  same 
time  to  the  invisible  regions.  The  manner  is  characteristic  in  which  Paul  joins  together  the 
evil  in  the  visible  and  invisible  worlds  as  one,  and  subjects  the  evil  angels  to  the  judgment 
of  those  who  have  become  one  with  Christ,  and  who  reign  and  judge  with  him.  As  to 
the  passage  in  1  Cor.  xi.  10,  I  have  often  doubted,  with  Dr.  Baur,  the  genuineness  of  the 
words  "because  of  the  angels,"  did  rovg  uyyilov^,  since  these  words,  after  a  sufficient 
reason  has  already  been  given  for  the  injunction,  seem  a  superfluous  addition  to  the  "  for 
this  cause,"  Aid.  tovto.  I  have  also  been  led  to  the  same  supposition  as  Dr.  Baur,  that  the 
words  may  have  been  brought  as  a  gloss  into  the  text  from  the  stand-point  of  a  represen- 
tation derived  from  the  apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch,  relative  to  the  intercourse  of  the  fallen 
angels  with  the  daughters  of  men  ;  Gen.  vi.  2.  '  Women  ought  to  be  veiled,  as  a  protec- 
tion against  the  temptations  and  plots  of  the  evil  spirits.'  Yet  I  do  not  venture  to  speak 
on  this  point  with  such  confidence  as  Dr.  Baur,  for  I  can  attach  a  meaning  to  these  words 
which  will  be  very  agreeable  to  Paul's  mode  of  viewing  such  subjects.  Paul,  always 
mindful  of  the  connexion  between  the  visible  and  invisible  world,  contemplates  the  angels 
as  witnesses  of  the  devotions  of  the  church.  Angels  and  men,  as  members  of  one  king- 
dom of  God  that  exists  under  one  head,  unite  together  in  common  acts  of  devotion  to  God. 
Now  the  women  ought  to  be  afraid  to  appear  before  such  eyes  in  a  manner  which  is  in- 
consistent with  the  natural  proprieties  of  the  female  sex,  and  which  would  mark  a  perver- 
sion of  the  female  character.  "We  must  certainly  attach  a  symbolic  moral  meaning  to  the 
veiling.  Also  in  1  Cor.  ix.  23  we  find  an  example,  though  not  perfectly  analogous,  where 
a  clause  with  Iva,  as  marking  a  special  object,  is  added  to  an  assertion  for  which  a  suf* 
ficient  reason  had  already  been  given  with  did. 


DOCTRIXE    OF   THE   LOGOS.  461 

revelation  of  Christ,  and  prove  that  everything  is  already  placed  in  his 
self-revelation  as  to  its  essence,  germ,  and  principle.  We  must  only  dis- 
tinguish the  various  and  the  successively  preparatory  stages  to  show  how 
what  was  contained  originally  in  his  Divine-human  consciousness,  and 
given  in  his  self-revelation,  was  developed  in  the  consciousness  and  the 
preaching  of  those  who  testified  of  him. 

As  in  the  doctrine  promulgated  by  Christ  himself,  we  find  the  fulfil- 
ment and  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament  teachings  given  together,  but 
in  the  developing-  process  of  apostolic  Christianity  fulfilment  and  ex- 
planation appear  separately  in  successive  stages,  and  we  behold  the  un- 
folding of  Christianity  from  its  closest  connexion  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  its  perfectly  independent  development  when  it  threw  aside  the 
Old  Testament  covering ;  so  also  we  can  distinguish  between  the  con- 
ception ot  the  person  of  Christ,  which  was  connected  with  the  predomi- 
nant Old  Testament  idea  of  the  Messiah,  and  that  view  which,  proceed- 
ing from  the  Old  Testament,  and  stretching  away  from  earth  to  heaven, 
contemplates  the  Divine  Word  becoming"  flesh,  first  of  all  anointed  with 
the  fulness  of  the  Divine  Spirit  before  he  came  forward  as  the  Messiah, 
then  known  as  the  preexistent  Son  of  God  who  appeared  in  time  and 
manifested  his  glory,  the  medium  of  transition  from  the  historical  revela- 
tion of  the  divine  to  Him  who  was  before  history  and  was  above  history. 
There  is  here  a  progressive  organic  development,  of  which  the  members 
reciprocally  conditionate  one  another;  but  everything  leads  back  to  what 
was  in  the  historical  Christ,  and  to  his  original  self-revelation.  The  first 
three  Gospels  and  the  Acts  correspond  to  the  first  stage  of  Messianic  con- 
ceptions ;  while  there  are  not  wanting  also,  in  these  first  three  Gospels, 
intimations  which  denote  or  imply  that  higher  idea  of  the  Son  of  God  as 
it  was  developed  by  Paul  and  John;  Matt.  xi.  27 ;  xxii.  44 ;  xxviii.  18, 
20.*  The  total  impression  given  by  the  Christ  of  these  Gospels  would 
lead  any  one  who  receives  it  with  a  susceptible  disposition,  to  recognise  a 
Divine  form  letting  itself  down  from  heaven  to  earth.  From  several 
pregnant  single  expressions,  as  when  he  said,  "  In  this  place  is  one  greater 
than  the  temple,"  Matt.  xii.  6,  and  from  taking  into  account  what  the 
temple  was  to  the  Jewish  religious  sentiment,  and  what  it  must  be  on 
the  first  stage  of  theocratic  development,  we  shall  also  be  led  to  recognise 
such  a  Christ  in  the  first  Gospels,  otherwise  we  cannot  forbear  charging 
him  with  impious  self-deification,  or  we  must  apply  the  scalpel  of  an  arbi- 
trary criticism,  and  let  the  whole  be  dissolved  into  something  as  unsub- 
stantial as  a  mist.  The  predicate  "Son  of  Man,"  vlog  tov  avdpumov,  the 
Messiah  appearing  as  a  man,  who  realized  the  original  type  of  humanity,  and 
exalted  human  nature  to  the  highest  dignity,  and  the  predicate  "  the  Son 
of  God,"  6  vlog  tov  Oeov,  which  on  Christ's  lips  denoted  something  more 
than  the  common  Jewish  idea  of  the  Messiah,  refer  reciprocally  to  one 

*  Compare  the  admirable  remarks  of  Baumgarten-Crusius  in  his  Grundzugen  der 
liblischen  Theologie,  p.  378. 


462  DOCTRINE   OP   THE   LOGOS. 

another,  and  imply  the  distinction  as  well  as  the  combination  and  the 
unity  of  the  Divine  and  the  human  in  him.* 

But  the  development  of  theology  from  the  Old  Testament  point  of 
view  also  favored  this  revelation  of  the  higher  image  of  Christ ;  and  to 
what  resulted  from  the  developing  process  of  the  divine  appearances  in 
the  Old  Testament,  ideas  which  sprung  up  on  the  soil  of  Grecian  philos- 
ophy were  afterwards  to  be  joined,  in  order  to  render  accessible  to  the 
human  mind  these  visible  presentations  of  the  Divine.  The  Messianic 
idea  of  the  Old  Testament  had  already  in  some  special  features  (as  in 
Isaiah  ix.  6)  been  exalted  from  the  earthly  to  the  superhuman,  the 
Divine,  and  shown  how  this  ideal  of  the  theocratic  king  in  his  essence 
must  transcend  the  limits  of  a  mere  human  appearance.  It  was  an  idea 
which,  though  at  first  representing  itself  in  a  historical,  earthly  form  of 
appearance,  was  yet  pregnant  with  a  significance  which  necessarily  tended 
to  the  super-earthly  and. the  heavenly.  The  revelation  of  God  in  the  Old 
Testament,  led  to  the  visible  presentation  of  a  Word  forming  the  con- 
nexion between  the  creation  and  the  eternal,  hidden  essence  of  God,  and 
this  Word  pointed  to  the  idea  of  an  eternal  self-revelation  of  God  as  a 
pre-supposition  of  the  whole  creation,  in  which  it  had  its  root,  and  with- 
out which  no  thought  from  God  or  leading  to  God  could  arise  in  the  hu- 
man soul.  It  is  a  prevailing  error  to  deduce  all  this  from  the  influence 
of  Grecian  philosophy.  It  is  true,  that  Platonic  and  Stoical  ideas  of  a 
Logos  afterwards  gave  Philo  points  of  connexion  for  Grecising  such  an 
idea ;  but  certainly,  had  not  such  an  idea  already  formed  itself  from  the 
Old  Testament  "  word,"  nan,  he  would  have  had  no  occasion  to  select 
such  a  term  to  express  the  idea.  In  Philo  himself  we  must  carefully  dis- 
tinguish what  he  had  received  from  the  traditions  of  Jewish  theology, 
and  what  he  made  of  that  theology  by  the  aid  of  his  Grseco-Jewish  re- 
ligious philosophy.  The  conception  that  was  derived  from  the  religious 
development  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  then  through  the  Alexandrian 
theology  brought  into  connexion  with  the  ideas  of  the  Grecian  philos- 
ophy, formed  a  natural  transition-point  from  legal  Judaism  which  placed 
an  infinite  chasm  between  God  and  man,  to  the  gospel  which  was  to  fill 
up  this  chasm,  since  it  revealed  a  God  communicating  himself  to  man- 
kind, and  establishing  a  fellowship  of  life  between  himself  and  them. 
The  ideas  of  a  divine  utterance,  which  limited  all  becoming  tc  the  crea- 
tion— of  a  word  by  which  God  operates  and  reveals  himself  in  the  world 
— of  an  angel  representing  God  and  speaking  in  his  name — of  a  divine 
wisdom  presupposed  through  the  universe — were  so  many  connecting 
links  for  a  contemplation  which  ascended  from  a  revelation  of  God  in  the 
world,  to  his  most  absolute  self-revelation.  And  it  was  a  result  of  this 
mode  of  contemplation,  that  the  appearance  of  Him  who  was  to  effect 
the  realization  of  the  idea  of  the  theocracy  and  was  its  end,  to  whom  all 
its  preceding  development  had  pointed  as  the  most  perfect  self-revelation 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  94-97. 


DOCTRINE   OF   THE   LOGOS.  463 

and  communication  of  God  in  human  nature,  was  acknowledged  as  the 
human  appearance  of  the  Word,  from  whom  the  whole  creation  and  all 
the  early  revelations  of  God,  the  whole  development  of  the  theocracy, 
proceeded.  Where  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  was  freed  from  its  popular 
theocratic  garb,  it  necessarily  assumed  that  higher  element  of  the  idea  of 
a  communication  of  the  Divine  Being  in  the  form  of  human  nature,  since 
this  element,  in  accordance  with  what  we  have  before  remarked,  had  al- 
ready been  prepared  through  the  progressive"  development  of  the  pro- 
phetic element  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Certainly  it  could  be  nothing  merely  accidental  which  induced  men  so 
differently  constituted  and  trained  as  Paul  and  John,  to  connect  such  an 
idea  with  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  but  must  have  been  the 
result  of  a  higher  necessity,  founded  in  the  nature  of  Christianity,  in  the 
power  of  the  impression  which  the  life  of  Christ  had  made  on  the  minds  o: 
men,  in  the  reciprocal  relation  between  the  appearance  of  Christ  and  the 
archetype  that  presents  itself  as  an  inward  revelation  of  God  in  the  depths 
of  the  higher  self-consciousness.  Had  this  doctrine,  when  it  was  first  pro- 
mulgated by  Paul,  been  altogether  new  and  peculiar  to  himself,  it  must 
have  excited  much  opposition,  as  contradicting  the  common  monotheistic 
belief  of  the  Jews,  even  among  the  apostles,  to  whom  from  their  previous 
habits,  such  a  speculative  or  theosophic  element  must  have  remained  un- 
known, unless  it  had  found  a  point  of  connexion  in  the  contents  of  the  pat- 
tern received  from  Christ  and  in  their  Christian  consciousness.  What 
opposition  had  Paul  to  encounter — though  Peter  had  already  prepared 
his  way — when  he  asserted  the  validity  of  the  gospel  apart  from  the  ob- 
servance of  the  ceremonial  law  !  But  this  doctrine  of  Christ  was  equally 
opposed  to  common  Judaism,  which,  when  it  afterwards  appeared  in  a 
Christian  form,  directed  its  opposition  against  Christianity  (which  ap- 
peared as  a  new  independent  creation  affecting  both  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice) principally  on  this  point.  Certainly  this  Judaism  can  appear  to  no 
impartial  observer  of  historical  development,  as  a  reaction  of  the  original 
elements  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  against  foreign  adulterations,  but 
rather  a  reaction  of  the  Jewish  spirit  against  the  spirit  of  Christianity, 
which  had  broken  through  the  Jewish  forms  in  which  it  was  at  first  en- 
veloped, and  had  developed  itself  into  the  new  creation  designed  by  its 
divine  Founder.  Thus,  too,  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  Son 
of  Man  in  the  sense  of  John  and  Paul,  was  not  a  mere  isolated  element 
accidentally  mingled  with  Christianity,  but  was  closely  connected  with 
the  whole  nature  of  its  doctrines  and  morals.  God  is  no  more  a  God  at 
an  infinite  distance,  but  revealed  in  man ;  a  divine  life  in  human  form. 
But  this  peculiar  principle  of  Christian  morals,  the  idea  of  the  pure  hu- 
manity transformed  by  a  divine  life,  obtains  its  true  significance  only  in 
connexion  with  the  doctrine  of  the  historical  Christ  as  the  God-man,  the 
Redeemer  of  sinful  humanity  which  from  him  must  first  receive  the  di- 
vine life,  and  persevere  in  constant, unreserved  dependence  on  him.  The 
self-deification  of  Pantheism,  which  denies  alike  the  God  and  the  Christ 


464  THE  DOCTRINE  OP  THE  SON  OF  GOD 

of  the  gospel,  rests  upon  an  entirely  different  basis,  and  is  essentially  op. 
posed  to  it.  In  Christianity,  the  controlling  elements  of  the  inward  life 
are  a  consciousness  of  dependence  on  One  Being,  of  a  state  of  pupillage 
in  relation  to  him,  a  surrender  of  the  soul  to  him  with  a  sense  of  want, 
in  order  to  receive  from  him  what  man  cannot  derive  from  himself, 
the  key-tone  of  humility ;  in  the  anti-christian  self-deification  of  Pan- 
theism there  is  a  consciousness  of  self-sufficiency  in  a  supposed  oneness 
with  God,  who  first  comes  to  consciousness  in  humanity.  Hence  we 
see  how  enormous  a  falsehood  it  is,  when  men  make  use  of  sounding 
Christian  phrases  for  conveying  sentiments  utterly  at  variance  with 
their  genuine  meaning,  as  has  often  been  done  of  late  years ;  as  when 
a  denial  of  God,  'which  is  degrading  to  man,  adorns  itself  with  the 
name  of  Humanism,  that  belongs  in  its  true  sense  only  to  Christianity 
which  exalts  man  to  the  consciousness  of  his  true  dignity,  the  dignity 
of  the  image  of  God  and  of  destination  to  eternal  life,  and  alone  can 
enable  him  to  attain  to  it. 

It  has  been  maintained,  indeed,  that  the  Christology  which  we  here 
attribute  to  Paul,  is  only  to  be  found  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and 
the  Philippians,  and  this  is  urged  as  a  proof  of  the  un-Pauline  character 
of  these  Epistles  ;  but  we  must  maintain  in  spite  of  all  such  arbitrary  and 
absurd  attempts  at  interpretation,  that  in  the  larger  and  universally  ac- 
knowledged Pauline  Epistles  the  same  Christology  forms  the  ground- 
work, which  appears  in  a  more  striking,  because  antithetic  form,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  The  words  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Galatians,  ver.  4,  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son,"  it-arc iorecXev  5 
6sbg  rbv  vlov  avrov,  manifestly  contain  the  idea  that  God  sent  out  his  Son 
from  himself,  and  that  therefore  he  was  with  him  before  he  appeared  in 
the  world ;  as  when  in  the  sixth  verse,  Paul  says,  "  God  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,"  et-arriareiXev  b  debg  to  rcvevna  rov  vlov 
avrov  elg  rag  nap6iag  ^wv,  it  is  implied  that  the  Spirit  sent  into  the 
hearts  of  believers  came  forth  from  the  depths  of  the  Divine  Being,  and 
in  consequence  effects  the  connexion  of  believing  souls  with  God.  Here 
the  words  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  -viii.  6,  are  particularly  applicable,  where  he 
points  out  the  characteristics  of  the  Christian's  religious  consciousness. 
'  But  to  us  there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  from  whom  all  existence  pro- 
ceeds, and  we  are  for  him,  (he  is  the  end  of  our  being,)  for  his  glory : 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  all  things  were  brought  into 
existence,  and  we  are  through  him.'  This  passage  cannot  be  otherwise 
understood,  than  that  the  "  by  whom  all  things,"  61  ov  rd  ndvr'a  corre- 
sponds to  the  "  of  whom  all  things,"  k%  ov  rd  rrdvra,  and  both  therefore 
are  equally  comprehensive,  and  thus  the  "  we  by  him,"  rftieig  61  avrov 
refers  itself  back  to  the  "  we  in  him,"  rjnecg  elg  avrov.  Accordingly,  the 
passage  affirms  that,  as  all  existence  proceeds  from  God,  so  through  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  one  Mediator,  in  relation  especially  to  the  pre-existent  Divine 
nature  in  him,  all  things  were  introduced  into  actual  existence,  and  as 
Christians  are  conscious  that  God  alone  ought  to  be  the  end  of  theh 


ESSENTIAL  TO   CHRISTIANITY.  465 

being,  so  the  realization  of  this  destiny  is  accomplished  through  Christ, 
by  virtue  of  the  new  creation  that  proceeds  from  him.  So  Paul  here 
combines  in  one  view  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Divine  and  the  hu- 
man, contemplates  him  in  reference  to  these  two  great  points,  as  the  me- 
diating Being,  by  whom  the  whole  universe  was  at  first  called  into  exist- 
ence, and  by  whom  not  only  the  original  creation,  but  that  creation  has 
been  brought  into  being  which  is  destined  to  realize  the  end  of  the  first.* 
The  exposition  of  this  last  passage  admits  of  less  doubt  than  that  of 

1  Cor.  x.  4,  where  Paul  represents  the  water  from  the  rock,  and  the  man- 
na which  was  given  to  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness,  as  symbols  of  the 
communion  with  Christ  effected  by  the  Lord's  Supper.  "  They  all  drank 
of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them,"  says  Paul,  "and  that  rock  was 
Christ."  Now,  this  would  not  imply  the  Messianic  preexistence,  if  we 
understand  it  to  mean — the  rock  represented  Christ :  was  a  symbol  of 
him.  But  it  certainly  agrees  better  with  Paul's  train  of  ideas  if  we  take  it 
in  this  sense  : — that  Christ  himself  was  the  rock  who  furnished  the  manna 
and  water  to  the  Jews,  as  he  now  communicates  himself  to  believers  in  the 
Supper.  Now,  if  we  are  not  justified  from  any  other  quarter  in  assum- 
ing the  idea  in  Paul's  writings  of  such  a  Messianic  preexistence,  we  must 
content  ourselves  with  such  a  dilution  of  his  meaning  in  that  passage  as 
is  offered  in  the  first  interpretation.  Likewise,  if  in  1  Cor.  x.  9,  "  Lord," 
Kvpiov,  is  the  genuine  reading,  but "  Christ,  "Xpiorbv,  a  correct  gloss,  this 
necessarily  indicates  that  when  Paul  said  of  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness, 
"  they  tempted  Christ,"  eneipaaav  rbv  Xpiorbv,  he  implied  that  Christ 
was  acting  among  them  according  to  his  Divine  nature.     The  words  in 

2  Cor.  viii.  9,  ('  For  ye  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through 
his  poverty  might  be  made  rich')  are  also  certain  evidence  that  Paul's 
views  were  such  as  we  have  stated.  It  is  impossible  to  understand  these 
words  as  Baur  (p.  628)  has  explained  them  in  order  to  do  away  with 
their  obvious  inference.  "  That  Christ  was  poor,  i.  e.  lived  in  poverty  and 
a  lowly  condition,  although  as  Redeemer,  through  the  grace  of  redemp- 
tion which  we  owe  to  him,  he  was  rich  enough  to  make  us  rich."  Cer- 
tainly, the  "being  rich"  forms  a  contrast  to  the  "  being  poor,"  but  the 
riches  of  his  grace  would  form  no  such  contrast.  To  be  rich  in  grace, 
and  to  live  in  poverty  and  a  lowly  condition,  are  perfectly  compatible. 
And  it  is  here  intended  to  exhibit  Christ  as  a  pattern  of  self-sacrifice  and 
self-denial,  that  men  may  learn  to  give  up  what  they  might  otherwise 
enjoy,  in  order  to  help  others.  But  how  could  this  agree  with  such  an 
exposition  ?  We  know  not  how  to  understand  it,  when  Baur,  who  can- 
not deny  this  reference  of  the  words,  will  not  acknowledge  what  is  im- 

*  Baur  (p.  627)  would  limit  the  "by  whom  all  things,"  61  ov  t&  mivra,  to  all  things 
which  relate  to  reconciliation  and  redemption ;  but  this  is  absolutely  impossible,  as  will  be 
evident  to  every  unprejudiced  person  on  an  examination  of  the  context.  The  words  in 
2  Cor.  v.  18,  where  the  limitation  plainly  proceeds  from  the  connexion,  are  not  at  all  par- 
allel to  the  passage  before  us. 


466  Paul's  cheistology. 

plied,  but  thinks  they  may  be  thus  explained  : — "  That  we  must  show  the 
same  self-sacrificing  disposition  as  Christ,  who  was  poor  and  in  a  lowly 
condition,  though  he  was  so  exalted  above  us  by  the  riches  of  his  grace." 
Where  is  the  contrast,  and  where  is  the  example  of  self-sacrifice  ?  Al- 
though the  word  7rro)^;ej;etv  in  itself,  according  to  the  Greek  usage,  only 
denotes  "  being  poor,"  yet  in  the  words,  "  for  our  sakes  he  was  poor,"  and 
in  the  contrast  "  though  he  was  rich,"  -nXovoioq  &v,  it  is  necessarily  un- 
derstood that  he  was  before  rich,  and  for  our  sakes  became  poor.  The 
words  cannot  be  understood  in  any  other  sense  than  this  :  He  who  was 
rich  in  divine  glory,  has  on  our  account  taken  part  in  our  poverty  ;  he 
'has  entered  within  the  limitations  and  wants  of  our  earthly  existence,  in 
order  that  by  means  of  this  his  self-humiliation  we  might  partake  of  the 
riches  of  his  Divine  life,  which  without  it  we  could  not  have  done. 
Again,  when  Paul  in  Rom.  viii.  3,  says,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  "  in  the 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  h  b\xouli\ia-i  eapttbc;  d/mpTiag,  these  words 
imply  the  preexistence  of  the  Son  of  God  not  in  the  flesh,  ovk  sv  caput. 
The  passage  in  Rom.  ix.  5,  can  certainly  not  be  made  use  of,  in  an  isolated 
form,  to  prove  from  it  Paul's  doctrinal  views,  since  it  requires  for  its  own 
interpretation  an  appeal  to  Paul's  known  mode  of  thinking  elsewhere,  and 
has,  undeniably,  great  difficulties.  Yet  we  must  admit  we  cannot  feel 
satisfied  with  the  explanation  that  Paul  must  have  ended  the  sentence 
with  the  words,  "  from  whom,  according  to  the  flesh,  Christ  came,"  with- 
out adding  anything  more.  He  who  was  so  fond  of  contrasts,  and  whom 
the  consciousness  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  of  which  he  was  always  ful', 
would  here  prompt  to  the  expression  of  a  contrast,  must,  in  trutl., 
have  felt  himself  compelled  to  express  more  strongly  what  he  brought 
forward  as  the  culminating  point  of  the  whole — the  last  end  of  the  theo- 
cratic development  which  was  to  proceed  from  the  Jews ;  we  cannot 
think  that  he  would  have  ended  in  so  bald  a  manner.  Neither  can  we 
admit,  that  the  doxology  to  God  the  Father  should  be  added  in  this  way 
without  any  intermediate  link  ;  this  whole  doxology  would  be  uncom- 
monly heavy,  and  quite  un-Pauline.  Hence  we  must  regard  that  as  the 
most  natural  exposition,  according  to  which  the  words  referred  to,  form 
a  contrast  to  the  preceding  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  Kara,  odptca,  and 
give  emphasis  to  the  meaning  of  the  great  preeminence  which  accrued 
to  the  Jews  from  the  Messiah's  being  born  of  them.  "  He  who  is  God 
exalted  over  all,"  (exalted  above  all  that  is  named  in  the  preceding 
clauses,)  or  perhaps  still  better  thus,  avoiding  the  encumbrance  of  the 
6  tov :  '  The  Being  exalted  over  all,  be  praised  as  the  Divine  Being  for 
ever.'  We  certainly  admit  that  Paul  would  not  have  conferred  the  title 
"  God,"  6  0eo£,simply,  upon  Christ,  but  it  is  something  different  when,  in 
reference  to  his  derived,  communicated  nature,  he  calls  him  God.  And 
as  he  now  attributes  such  exaltation  to  him,  and  represents  him  as  the 
Being  in  whom  all  the  communications  of  divine  blessing  to  mankind  are 
concentrated,  he  might  be  well  induced  to  ascribe  the  doxology  to  him. 
That  this  does  not  occur  elsewhere,  cannot  serve  as  a  proof  that  Paul 


Paul's  christology.  467 

could  not  once  have  done  this  in  a  given  connexion.  The  words  of 
Paul  in  Rom.  i.  4,  contain  nothing  whatever  inconsistent  with  this  view. 
He  there  refers  to  the  Son  of  God  in  his  two-fold  relation, — in  his  state 
of  humiliation,  when  he  had  subjected  himself  to  the  limitations  of 
earthly  humanity,  and  as  he  went  beyond  it  when  the  dignity  attached 
to  him  as  the  Son  of  God  was  revealed,  so  that  his  Divine  essence  un 
veiled  itself,  free  from  the  limitations  of  nature  by  which  it  had  hitherto 
been  kept  back.  The  Son  of  God,  who  according  to  his  earthly  appear- 
ance was  born  of  the  posterity  of  David  (the  Messiah  peculiarly  belong- 
ing to  the  Jewish  people),  by  means  of  the  indwelling  spirit  of  holiness 
(the  Divine  nature  peculiar  to  him)  was  proved  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by 
his  resurrection,  or  in  virtue  of  his  resurrection,  (for  this  event  was  in- 
deed the  beginning  of  his  emerging  from  the  limits  of  an  existence  sub- 
jected to  nature,)  in  order  that  henceforward,  in  correspondence  to  the 
essence  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  "  spirit  of  holiness,"  Ttvevjia  dyicjavvrjg^ 
in  him,  he  might  operate  with  a  power  raised  above  all  limits,  invisible 
and  Divine — the  theocratic  King  and  Redeemer  belonging  equally  to  the 
whole  human  race. 

Since  Paul  contemplated  the  Redeemer  equally  on  the  side  of  his  Di- 
vine preexistence  and  on  that  of  his  human  appearance,  he  united  under 
one  point  of  view  the  reference  to  the  universe  of  created  beings  in  gen- 
eral, and  to  the  new  spiritual  creation  in  particular  which  was  introduced 
among  mankind  by  the  gospel ;  or  in  other  words,  the  universal  Kingdom 
of  God  which  embraces  the  whole  spiritual  world,  and  that  particular 
Kingdom  established  in  the  form  of  a  Church  on  earth.  Paul  was  led  to 
exhibit  this  twofold  reference  in  its  unity  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
for  the  purpose  of  combating  the  pretensions  of  certain  notions  then  in 
vogue  respecting  spirits,  although,  as  we  have  shown,  the  same  doctrinal 
view  lay  at  the  basis  of  what  he  has  expressed  in  his  earlier  Epistles. 
When  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  describes  Christ  as  the  image  of  God,  in  whom 
the  glory  of  God  is  mirrored  forth,  the  same  train  of  ideas  is  implied, 
which,  more  fully  unfolded  by  an  antithetical  reference,  meets  us  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  He  who  is  the  image  of  the  hidden  incompre- 
hensible God,  he  in  whom  that  God  revealed  himself  before  all  created 
existence,  he  who  bore  in  himself  the  Archetype  of  all  existences,*  in 
whom  all  earthly  and  heavenly  beings,  all  invisible  as  well  as  visible 
powers,  have  been  created,  by  whom  andf  in  reference  to  whom  all  things 
are  created,  who  is  before  all,J  and  in  whom  (in  connexion  with  whom) 

*  Col.  i.  16,  the  "  by  (in)  him,"  h  avry,must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  "by 
him,"  61  avTov:  the  former  indicating  the  foundation  of  being  in  idea,  as  the  Logos  is  the 
ideal  ground  of  all  existence;  the  latter,  the  instrument  for  the  realization  of  the  Divine 
idea. 

f  Inasmuch  as  the  revelation  and  glory  of  God  in  the  creation  can  be  effected  only 
through  him,  in  whom  alone  God  reveals  himself,  through  him  everything  refers  itself  to 
3od. 

\  The  korl  denotes  the  divine  existence,  but  also  with  a  particular  reference  to  the 
kori  in  v.  18. 


468  r  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGT. 

all  beings  continue  to  exist, — the  same  Being,  therefore,  who  is  the  Head 
of  all,  of  the  whole  all-comprehending  kingdom  of  God,  is  also  the  Head 
of  the  Church  which  belongs  to  him  as  his  body  (by  virtue  of  his  enter- 
ing into  communion  corporeally  with  human  nature)  ;  since  he,  as  the 
first-born  from  the  dead,  has  become  the  first-fruits  of  the  new  creation 
among  mankind,  that  he  may  be  the  first  of  every  order  of  beings,  as  the 
"  first-born  of  every  creature"  (rather  of  the  whole  creation),  TrpoToroicog 
■ndorjz  KTioeog,  so  also  the  first-born  of  the  new  creation,  TrputroroKog  rrjg 
Katvrjg  KTiaetog*  According  to  his  divine  being,  deduced  from  the  orig- 
inal of  the  Divine  essence  before  the  whole  creation,  he  forms  the  medium 
for  the  origination  of  all  created  existence  ;  as  the  Risen  One  before  all 
others  in  glorified  human  nature,  he  forms  the  medium  for  the  new 
spiritual  creation  which  proceeds  from  him  among  mankind.  With  this 
view  also  is  connected  the  manner  in  which  Paul  expresses  himself  in 
Phil.  ii.  5-9,  '  That  whereas  Christ  found  himself  in  a  state  of  Divine  ex- 
istence, he  did  not  assert  that  equality  to  God  and  that  Divine  existence 
which  he  possessed,!  nor  was  he  eager  to  let  it  come  forth  that  he  mightj 
make  a  show  with  it,  but  on  the  contrary,  he  renounced  it  when  he  en- 
tered into  the  dependent  relations  of  a  creaturely  human  existence,  and 
was  born  as  a  man  like  other  men,  although  under  the  covering  of  this 
visible  form  was  hidden§  something  exalted  above  human  nature  and  the 
whole  created  universe.  The  exaltation  whitfh  followed  this  self-humilia- 
tion, and  by  which  the  obedience  rendered  by  him  in  the  form  of  a  ser- 
vant was  rewarded,  cannot  be  referred  to  that  in  which  according  to  his 
Divine  essence  he  was  already  exalted  above  all,  but  only  to  the  man  who 
had  come  forth  from  that  act  of  self-humiliation  ;  who  as  a  man,  con- 
scious of  his  Divine  nature,  carried  this  act  of  self-renunciation  to  its  last 
degree.  We  must  enter  into  the  distinction  of  ideas  which  Paul  him- 
self does  not  apply,|  his  language  giving  us  only  a  single  view.     By  so 

*  It  cannot  be  urged  against  this  interpretation,  that  if  Paul  had  intended  to  mark 
the  reference  to  the  Divine  and  human,  he  would  have  pointedly  marked  the  distinction  of 
the  "according  to  the  flesh,"  Kara  oupua,  and  "according  to  the  Spirit,"  nard.  nvev/na,  for 
when  Paul  uses  such  marks,  he  wishes  to  render  the  antithesis  prominent;  but  here  it  is 
his  main  design,  along  with  the  distinction,  to  mark  the  unity  of  the  subject,  and  therefore 
it  would  have  been  contrary  to  his  intention  to  have  marked  the  contrast  more  sharply. 
In  the  former  passage  (Rom.  i.  3,  4)  the  dialectic  element  predominates,  but  here  the  soar- 
ing of  inspiration. 

f  Here  Christ  is  plainly  distinguished  from  Him  who  alone,  as  source  and  original 
ground  of  all,  is  called  God,  6  debc.  Also  in  tho  passage  in  Titus  ii.  13,  I  cannot  forbear 
regarding  the  great  God  and  the  Saviour  as  two  distinct  subjects.  "  It  is  Christ  our  Sa- 
viour through  whom  the  glory  of  the  great  God  is  revealed."  The  form  of  expression, 
•'  The  great  God  who  gave  himself  for  us,"  were  wholly  un-Pauline.  Compare  the  re- 
marks of  the  impartial  Winer  in  his  Grammar,  p.  142. 

$  See  above,  page  411. 

§  The  contrast  between  the  inward  nature  and  the  outward  form  of  appearance,  lies  in 
the  "in  the  likeness  of  men,"  h  dfioMuan  dvdpuxuv,  Phil.  ii.  7. 

J  To  many  questions  which  later  theologians  have  started  and  attempted,  after  theii 
manner,  to  answer,  Paul  gave  no  attention  whatever,  (as  Schleiermacher  has  justly  re- 


THE   KINGDOM   OF  EVIL.  469 

doing  we  shall  find  here  no  contradiction  which  would  oblige  us  to  drag 
in  Gnostic  ideas,  of  which  we  do  not  perceive  the  least  trace ;  there  is, 
indeed,  nothing  more  than  what  we  have  already  found  in  2  Cor.  viii.  9  ; 
Rom.  viii.  3.* 

The  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  has  also  in  Paul's  writings  an  essen- 
tial reference  to  a  Kingdom  of  Evil.  Although  evil  carries  with  it  only- 
division  and  internal  contradiction,  and  forms  no  unity,  and  therefore  we 
cannot  speak  of  a  kingdom  of  evil  that  is  constituted  for  one  precise 
object,  yet  its  opposition  against  the  kingdom  of  God  imparts  a  unity  to 
all  the  diversified  manifestations  of  evil.  As  the  kingdom  of  God, 
according  to  the  Pauline  views,  in  its  most  extensive  sense,  passes  be- 
yond the  boundaries  of  earthly  existence,  and  embraces  the  totality  of 
the  development  of  the  divine  life  in  all  those  beings  who  are  destined  to 
exhibit  a  conscious  revelation  of  their  Maker,  so  likewise  the  opposition 
against  the  kingdom  of  God  is  represented  by  the  Apostle  as  of  vast  ex- 
tent and  diversified  relations.  He  considers  the  prevalence  of  sin  in 
mankind  to  stand  in  connexion  with  the  prevalence  of  evil  in  the  higher 
spiritual  world  ;  the  principle  of  sin  is  everywhere  the  same, — the  selfish- 
ness striving  against  the  Divine  will  in  those  rational  beings  who  were 
designed  to  subordinate  their  will  to  God's  with  consciousness  and 
freedom.  All  other  evil  is  traced  by  Paul  to  the  outbreak  of  this  opposi- 
tion in  the  rational  creation  as  its  primary  source.  As  all  sin  among 
mankind  is  deduced  from  the  original  sin  at  the  beginning  of  the  race,  and 
is  considered  as  its  effect,  so  all  evil,  generally,  is  viewed  in  connexion  with 
that  first  evil,  and  as  the  operation  of  the  same  fundamental  tendency. 
This  is  of  importance  in  relation  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  sin.  Had  Paul, 
according  to  the  views  (see  above,)  ascribed  to  him  by  some,  considered 
evil  as  only  something  necessarily  grounded  in  the  intellectual  and  sen- 
suous development  of  human  nature,  and  the  first  man  as  in  this  respect 
a  type  of  all  mankind,  the  idea  of  an  evil  extraneous  to  mankind  in  a 
world  of  higher  intelligences,  could  have  found  in  his  mind  no  point  of 
connexion.  But  it  constitutes  the  importance  of  this  doctrine  in  relation 
to  Christian  Theism,  that  the  reality  and  inexplicability  of  sin  as  an  act 
of  the  will  is  thereby  firmly  established,  in  opposition  to  all  attempts  at 
explaining  it,  which  go  to  deny  the  very  existence  of  freedom,  and  deduce 
evil  from  a  necessity  which  classes  moral  development  with  the  chain  of 
causes  and  effects  in  nature.f     Thus  the  apostle  recognises  in  all  the  un- 


marked in  his  Church  History,  p.  75,)  notwithstanding  the  advantage  he  had  over  later 
theologians  in  the  fullness  and  depth  of  views  which  in  an  immediate  manner  were  com- 
municated tj  him  through  the  illumination  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 

*  See  above,  page  465. 

\  This  has  been  recognized  in  the  light  of  an  ethico-religious  idealism  by  Kant, 
whose  earnest  moral  spirit  (on  this  point  at  least)  approaches  much  nearer  to  biblical 
Christianity,  than  do  the  modern  pantheistic  deification  of  ideas,  and  the  logical  monism  of 
those  who  fancy  they  can  reconcile,  by  dint  of  logic,  those  contrarieties  in  human  nature 


470  THE   KINGDOM    OF   EVIL,    AND 

godliness  of  men,  whether  it  assumes  a  theoretical  or  a  practical  form,  the 
power  of  a  principle  of  darkness — a  spirit  which  is  active  in  unbelievers.* 
The  al£jv  ovrog  and  the  k6o\io<;  ovrog  are  the  terms  used  to  express  the 
totality  of  everything  which  opposes  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  collective 
assemblage  of  the  ungodly,  the  kingdom  of  this  spirit  which  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  evil  in  general.f 

which  only  admit  of  a  practical  settlement.  See  Kant's  Religion  innerhalb  der  Grcinzen 
der  Uossen  Vernunft. 

*  Eph.  ii.  2.  Tov  irvevfiaroc;  tov  viv  kvep-yovvroc  iv  to'lc  vlolf  r?)f  uTrei6eia<;. 
,  f  Paul  must  naturally  have  regarded  heathenism  in  itself  (as  a  suppression  by  sin  of 
the  knowledge  of  God)  as  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  the  evil  spirit.  But  though  the 
opinion  that  the  apostle  adopted  the  notion  of  the  Jews,  that  the  heathen  gods  were  evil 
spirits  who  influenced  men  to  pay  them  religious  homage,  has  met  with  several  advocates 
in  modern  times,  much  may  be  urged  against  it.  When  Paul  speaks  of  the  origin  of 
idolatry  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  it  would  have  been  a  most 
natural  opportunity  for  saying,  that  men  through  sin  were  given  up  to  the  influence  of 
evil  spirits,  and  were  seduced  by  them  to  transfer  to  them  the  homage  that  was  due  to 
the  living  God.  It  would  have  marked  more  strongly  the  abominableness  of  idolatry, 
and  the  predominance  of  unnatural  lusts,  to  which  he  there  refers,  if  he  could  have  traced 
them  to  the  influence  of  evil  spirits,  to  whom  men,  esteeming  them  to  be  divinities,  had 
subjected  themselves.  But  we  find  nothing  of  all  this ;  Paul  speaks  merely  of  the  trans- 
ference to  earthly  things  of  the  homage  due  to  God,  and  he  deduces  all  the  enormities  he 
specifies  solely  from  the  moral  and  intellectual  course  of  development  among  men  left  to 
themselves.  In  Gal.  iv.  8,  when  he  says  of  those  who  had  before  been  heathens,  that 
they  had  served  what  was  no  god,  as  if  it  were  God,  it  is  noways  implied  that  they  con- 
sidered other  real  beings  or  evil  spirits  to  be  gods ;  but  only  that  they  had  made  them- 
selves slaves  of  the  "elements  of  the  world,"  aroixela  tov  kog/iov,  instead  of  serving  God 
alone,  as  became  the  dignity  of  human  nature.  The  aroixsla  tov  noaiiov  are  the  objects 
to  which  they  ascribed  divine  power  (see  p.  426.)  In  reference  to  the  Corinthian  church, 
I  cannot  retract  the  opinion  I  expressed  above,  ante,  p.  231.  I  cannot  so  understand 
the  passage  in  1  Cor.  viii.  7,  as  if  the  persons  indicated  by  Paul  were  Christians  who 
could  not  altogether  free  themselves  from  faith  in  the  reality  of  the  heathen  divinities  as 
such  ;  for,  according  to  the  relation  in  which  Christianity  at  that  time  stood  to  heathen- 
ism, it  is  utterly  inconceivable  that,  among  those  who  became  Christians,  such  a  mixture 
•  could  be  formed  of  their  earlier  polytheistic  views  with  Christian  monotheism.  Still,  if 
they  could  not  free  themselves  from  belief  in  the  reality  of  beings  who  had  formerly  exer- 
cised so  great  an  influence  over  their  minds,  those  whom  they  once  held  to  be  divinities 
must  have  appeared  to  them  as  evil  spirits,  in  consequence  of  the  total  revolution  in  their 
modes  of  thinking.  But  if  this  be  assumed,  Paul  could  not  at  the  same  time  hold  as 
correct  that  view  which  he  regards  as  peculiar  to  the  weak.  He  declares,  moreover,  that 
the  views  of  the  liberal  party  in  the  Corinthian  church  were  correct  in  theory,  but  they 
proceeded  on  the  supposition  that  the  heathen  divinities  were  only  imaginary  beings,  and 
that  for  this  reason  the  eating  of  the  meat  offered  to  them  was  a  matter  of  perfect  indiffer- 
ence. In  1  Cor.  viii.  5,  he  contrasts  only  two  subjective  positions  in  religion,  without 
speaking  of  the  relation  to  the  objective.  The  passage  in  1  Cor.  x.  20,  is  the  strongest  in 
favor  of  the  view  which  we  are  here  opposing.  But  we  must  determine  the  meaning  of 
this  verse  by  comparing  it  with  verse  19.  If  we  admitted  that  Paul  considered  the 
heathen  divinities  to  be  evil  spirits,  we  must  agree  with  Billroth  (see  his  commentary  on 
this  passage),  that  he  wished  to  guard  against  that  misunderstanding  to  which  the  pre- 
ceding comparison  might  have  given  rise,  as  if  he  really  acknowledged  their  divinities  to 
oe  actually  divine.     But,  as  we  have  already  remarked,   no  member  of  the  Corinthian 


Christ's  victory  over  it.  471 

Jesus  appeared  in  humanity  to  destroy  the  Kingdoms  of  Sin  ami  of 
Satan.  All  the  powers  of  evil  arrayed  themselves  against  the  Holy  Ona 
of  God  ;  his  death,  in  which  was  manifested  the  mighty  power  of  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  among  mankind,  seemed  to  be  their  most  splendid 
triumph,  for  here  the  mightiest  opponent  of  this  kingdom  succumbed  to 
their  machinations.  But  the  relation  was  reversed  ;  and  since  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  were  the  completion  of  his  work  of  redemption,  since 
Christ  by  his  resurrection  and  ascension  to  heaven  manifested  the  victo- 
rious power  of  the  redemption  he  had  completed,  since  now  as  the 
Glorified  One,  with  the  power  of  a  divine  life  that  overcame  all  opposi- 
tion, he  continued  to  work  in  and  by  those  whom  he  had  redeemed  from 
the  power  of  sin  and  Satan, — it  was  precisely  by  that  event  which  ap- 
peared as  a  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  that  its  power  was  de- 
stroyed. In  this  connexion  Paul  says,  in  Coloss.  ii.  15,  that  Christ  by 
his  redeeming  sufferings  had  gained  a  triumph  over  the  powers  that  op- 
posed the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  had  put  them  openly  to  shame,  just  as 
the  chiefs  of  vanquished  nations  are  led  in  a  triumphal  procession  as 
signs  of  the  destruction  of  the  hostile  force, — thus  the  power  of  evil  now 
appeared  to  be  destroyed.  And  a  similar  image  in  Eph.  iv.  8  represents 
Christ,  after  he  had  made  prisoners  of  the  powers  opposed  to  him,  as 
ascending  victoriously  to  heaven,  and  distributing  gifts  among  men  as 
the  tokens  of  his  triumph,  just  as  princes  are  wont  to  celebrate  their  vic- 
tories by  the  distribution  of  donatives.  These  gifts  are  the  charisms.* 
As  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  iinpartation  of  divine  life  to  be- 
lievers, and  especially  the  founding  of  a  church  animated  by  a  divine 
principle  of  life,  are  proofs  of  the  conquest  over  the  kingdom  of  evil,  and 
of  the  liberation  of  the  redeemed  from  its  power;  so  likewise  the  mani- 
fold operations  of  this  divine  life  in  redeemed  human  nature,  are  so  many 
marks  of  Christ's  victory  over  the  kingdom  of  evil,  since  those  powers 
belonging  to  man,  which  formerly  were  employed  in  the  service  of  sin, 
are  now  become  the  organs  of  the  divine  life.  Now,  through  redemp- 
tion, the  power  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  is  broken,  and  a  foundation 
is  laid  for  the  complete  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  its  total 
separation  from  all  evil.     But  till  this  final  consummation  is  effected,  tho 

church  could  be  supposed  to  entertain  such  an  opinion,  nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  they 
could  so  have  misunderstood  the  language  of  Paul,  who  always  maintained  so  strongly 
an  exclusive  monotheism.  On  the  other  hand,  his  words  might  be  so  understood,  as  if 
he  considered  these  divinities  to  be  real  beings  (though  evil  spirits),  and  hence  ascribed 
an  objective  importance  to  what  was  offered  to  them.  And  in  opposition  to  this 
mistake,  he  now  says  that  he  speaks  only  of  the  subjective  conceptions  of  the  heathen 
which  stood  in  opposition  to  Christian  views,  and  with  which  Christians  could  enter  into 
no  sort  of  communion,  that  those  beings  to  whom  they  sacrificed  were  divinities,  daiuovia, 
in  the  Grecian  seuse  of  the  term.  When  Dr.  Baur,  from  the  tripod  of  his  pretended 
science,  declares  authoritatively  that  what  I  have  said  is,  some  of  it  incorrect,  and  soma 
of  it  obscure,  this  disturbs  me  not  at  all.     To  arguments  I  will  reply.  , 

*  See  p.  136.  f 


472  THE   KINGDOM    OF  EVIL. 

kingdom  of  Christ  can  only  develop  itself  in  continued  conflict  with  the 
kingdom  of  evil,  for  the  power  of  the  latter  is  still  shown  in  them  who 
have  not  been  freed  from  it  by  redemption,  and  by  them  the  kingdom  ot 
God  as  it  exists  in  the  believer  is  opposed,  though  all  that  opposes  it 
must  in  the  end  contribute  to  its.  victory.  And  even  in  the  redeemed 
themselves,  points  of  connexion  with  the  kingdom  of  evil  exist,  as  far  as 
their  lives  are  not  purified  from  a  mixture  of  ungodliness.  Hence  Chris* 
tians  are  called  to  act  as  soldiers  for  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  2  Tim.  ii.  3, 
against  all  the  power  of  evil,  both  that  which  meets  them  from  without 
in  their  efforts  for  the  extension  and  promotion  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
among  mankind,  as  well  as  against  all  from  within,  which  threatens  to 
disturb  the  operations  of  the  divine  life  in  themselves,  and  in  so  doing 
to  retard  the  intensive  advancement  of  Christ's  kingdom,  Eph.  vi.  11. 
It  is  the  dictate  of  practical  Christian  morals,  that  as  every  talent  is 
transformed  into  a  charism,  it  becomes  appropriated  for  this  divine  equip- 
ment of  the  militia  Christi.  If  Christians  only  rightly  appropriate  divine 
truth,  and  make  all  the  powers  of  their  nature  subservient  to  it,  they  will 
find  therein  the  most  complete  equipment  (the  navo-rXia  rov  deov)  in 
order  to  carry  on  this  warfare  successfully.  Whenever  Paul  mentions 
this  invisible  kingdom  of  evil,  it  is  always  in  connexion  with  the  presup- 
posed sinful  direction  of  the  will  in  human  nature,  for  the  doctrine  of 
Satan  can  only  be  rightly  understood  by  means  of  the  idea  of  sin  derived 
from  our  moral  experience.  In  the  copious  discussion  on  the  nature 
and  origin  of  sin,  and  on  the  reaction  of  the  work  of  redemption 
against  sin,  which  is  given  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Satan  is  not 
mentioned  ;  and  when  Paul  first  turned  to  the  heathen  and  led  them  to 
the  faith,  he  certainly  appealed  at  first  only  to  the  consciousness  of  sin 
in  their  own  breasts,  as  in  his  discourse  at  Athens.  Moreover,  he  always 
contemplated  this  doctrine  in  connexion  with  the  redemption  accom- 
plished by  Christ.  Believers  have  reason  to  fear  the  invisible  powers  oi 
darkness  only  when  they  expose  themselves  to  their  influence  by  the  sin- 
ful direction  of  their  will,  and  are  not  careful  to  make  a  right  use  of  the 
means  granted  them,  in  communion  with  Christ,  for  conflict  with  the 
kingdom  of  evil,  that  kingdom  which  the  Redeemer  has  overcome  once 
for  all.  Paul  employs  this  doctrine  to  arouse  believers  to  greater  watch- 
fulness, that,  under  the  consciousness  of  an  opposing  invisible  power 
which  avails  itself  of  every  germ  of  evil  as  a  point  of  connexion,  they 
may  carefully  watch  and  allow  nothing  of  the  kind  to  spring  up ;  and 
that  they  may  rightly  appropriate  and  use  the  divine  weapons  furnished 
by  the  gospel  against  all  temptation  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  10,  11  ;  Eph.  vi.  12. 

We  have  now  to  speak  of  the  gradual  development  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  as  it  advances  in  conflict  with  the  kingdom  of  evil  until  the  period 
of  its  completion. 

With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  both  nations  and  individuals 
are  led  by  the  publication  of  the  gospel  to  a  participation  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  Paul  deduces  the  counsel  of  redemption  and  everything  belong- 


KINGDOM    OF   CHRIST.  473 

ing  to  its  completion,  both  generally  and  particularly,  from  the  free  dis- 
posal of  the  grace  of  God,  irrespective  of  any  merit  on  the  part  of  man. 
The  peculiar  form  of  his  doctrinal  scheme  is  closely  connected  with  the 
manner  in  which  he  was  changed  from  being  an  eager  persecutor  of  the 
gospel  into  its  zealous  professor  and  publisher.  And  this  free  movement 
of  grace,  not  measured  and  determined  according  to  human  merit,  he 
brings  forward  in  opposition  to  a  theory  equally  arrogant  and  contracted, 
according  to  which  admission  to  the  kingdom  of  God  was  determined 
by  the  merits  of  -a  legal  righteousness  ;  the  Jewish  people,  by  virtue  of 
the  merits  and  election  of  their  progenitors,  were  supposed  to  have  an 
unalienable  right  to  form  the  main-pillar  and  centre  of  the  Theocracy 
Accordingly,  he  contemplates  the  free  arrangements  of  grace  in  a  two- 
fold contrast ;  in  contrast  to  claims  founded  on  natural  descent  from  dis- 
tinguished ancestors,  and  a  peculiar  theocratic  nation — and  to  claims 
founded  on  the  meritoriousness  of  a  legal  righteousness. 

In  reference  to  the  first  of  these  claims,  he  makes  the  contrast,  on 
the  one  hand,  of  natural  descent  determined  by  lawr,  and  therefore  founded 
in  a  law  of  natural  development, — what  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  the  aap- 
Kinbv ;  on  the  other  hand,  a  development  not  to  be  calculated  according 
to  such  a  lawr  of  nature,  but  one  which  depends  on  the  free  disposal  of 
divine  grace  and  of  the  divine  Spirit ;  the  arrangement  according  to 
which  the  promise  is  fulfilled  as  the  work  of  God's  free  grace — the  Kara 
rrvevfia,  TrvevfiaTLKov.  In  the  former  case,  the  development  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  proceeds  by  outward  propagation  and  transmission — in  the 
latter,  a  development  ensues  in  virtue  of  the  invisible  and  internal  con- 
nexion of  the  operations  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  of  the  communication 
of  divine  life.  Paul  illustrates  this  universal  contrast,*  this  law  for  the 
theocratical  development  through  all  ages  by  a  particular  example,  the 
example  of  Abraham's  posterity,  from  whom  the  Jews  deduced  their 
theocratic  privileges.  He  points  out  how,  among  the  immediate  posterity 
of  Abraham,  not  that  son  wras  chosen  who  would  have  carried  on  the  line 
of  his  descendants  according  to  the  common  course  of  nature,  but  one 
who  was,  according  to  a  special  promise,  miraculously  bornf  contrary  to 
all  human  calculation;  that  this  latter,  and  not  the  former,  was  destined 
to  be  the  instrument  of  fulfilling  the  divine  promises,  and  of  continuing 
the  theocracy ;  the  law  for  the  continued  development  of  which  was  thus 
pointed  out.  Tradition  was  thus  placed  in  contrast  with  that  which  is 
accomplished  from  within  by  the  creation  of  the  divine  Spirit,  with  that 
which  ensues  from  a  law  that  acts  by  necessity,  and  so  cannot  be  meas- 
ured or  accounted  for,  and  with  that  which  depends  on  the  free  actions 

*  The  same  contrast,  which  has  ever  again  made  its  appearance  among  the  conflicting 
views  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  contrast  between  Judaism  in  a  Christian  form,  as  in 
Catholicism  and  other  related  modes  of  thinking,  and  the  free  evangelical  point  of  view  of 
the  visible  church  depending  for  its  development  on  the  invisible  efficiency  of  the  divine 
word. 

\  Kara  TTVEVjia,  not  Kara  adpua ;  Gal  iv. 


474  KINGDOM    OF   CUEIST. 

of  the  Spirit.   Most  unjustly  has  Paul  been  charged  here  with  an  arbitrary 
allegorizing  which  could  carry  weight  only  with  the  readers  of  that  age. 

'  We  do  not  here  perceive  in  him  a  theologian  entangled  in  Jewish 
prejudices,  who  could  not  act  contrary  to  the  education  he  had  received 
in  the  school  of  Pharisaism,  but  a  great  master  in  the  interpretation  of 
history,  who  in  particular  facts  could  discern  general  laws  and  types,  and 
knew  how  to  reduce  the  most  complex  phenomena  to  fixed  and  ever- 
recurring  single  laws.  Thus  he  here  infers,  with  perfect  correctness, 
from  a  particular  case,  a  universal  law  for  the  historical  development  of 
the  Theocracy,  which  he  illustrates  by  that  fact.  He  applies  the  same 
law  to  the  Jews,  considered  as  the  special  theocratic  people  in  relation  to 
the  theocratic  people  formed  from  the  mass  of  mankind  by  the  gospel. 
Since  those,  who,  according  to  the  law  of  natural  descent  from  the  theo- 
cratic people,  imagined  that  they  had  a  sure  title  to  admission  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  were  yet  excluded  from  it ;  on  the  contrary,  by  a  dis- 
pensation of  the  divine  Spirit,  which  could  not  have  been  calculated  be- 
forehand, towards  the  heathen  nations,  who  according  to  the  order  of 
nature,  since  they  were  eritirely  distinct  from  the  theocratic  people, 
appeared  to  be  altogether  excluded*  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  a  new 
theocratic  race  was  called  into  existence,  in  whom  the  promises  made  to 
Abraham  were  to  be  fulfilled. 

With  respect  to  the  second  point,  that  of  founding  a  claim  for  ad- 
mission into  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the  merits  of  a  legal  righteousness, 
Paul  meets  this  arrogant  assumption  by  the  historical  fact  that  the  Jews, 
who  by  their  zeal  in  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  appeared  to  have  the 
most  valid  title  to  such  a  privilege,  were  excluded  from  it  on  account  of 
their  unbelief;  and  on  the  contrary,  the  heathen,  among  whom  there  had 
been  no  such  striving  after  a  legal  righteousness,  were  unexpectedly 
called  to  partake  of  it. 

As  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  contemplates 
only  this  one  aspect  of  the  dispensation  of  divine  grace  in  the  perpetua- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  for  a  polemical  purpose,  it  might  seem 
as  if  he  deemed  the  dispensation  of  divine  grace  to  be  in  no  respect 
affected  by  the  determination  of  the  human  will — as  if  happiness  and 
unhappiness  were  distributed  among  men  by  a  divine  predestination  en- 
tirely unconditional ;  and  as  if  he  deduced  the  different  conduct  of  men, 
in  reference  to  the  divine  revelations  and  dispensations,  from  a  divine 
causation  which  arranged  everything  according  to  an  unchangeable  neces- 
sity. This  principle  if  carried  out,  would  lead  to  a  denial  of  all  moral,  free, 
self-determination  in  general,  contradict  the  essence  of  genuine  Theism, 
and  would  logically  be  consistent  only  with  a  Pantheistic  view  of  the 

*  However. improbable  it  appeared  that  Abraham  would  obtain  offspring  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  his  race,  in  the  manner  which  actually  occurred,  there  was  as  little  probability 
that  the  true  worship  of  Jehovah  would  proceed  from  nations  who  had  been  hitherto 
devoted  to  idolatry. 


EXPOSITION    OF    ROMANS  IX.  475 

world.  But  on  such  a  supposition,  the  line  of  argument  which  Paul  here 
adopts  would  be  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  general  design  of  this 
epistle.  He  wishes  to  prove  both  to  Gentiles  and  Jews,  that,  owing  to 
their  sins,  they  had  no  means  of  exculpating  themselves  before  the  divine 
tribunal,  that  all  were  alike  exposed  to  punishment ;  he  particularly 
wished  to  lead  the  Jews  to  a  conviction  that,  by  their  unbelief,  they  de- 
served exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  on  the  hypothesis  to 
to  which  we  have  just  referred,  he  would  have'removed  all  imputation  of 
guilt,  and  furnished  the  best  ground  of  excuse  for  all  in  a  higher  neces- 
sity that  guided  all  human  actions  by  an  invisible  thread.  Or  we  must 
explain  this  scheme  by  the  distinction  of  a  twofold  view,  one  theoretical, 
the  other  practical,  a  hidden  and  a  revealed  will  of  God  ;  a  distinction 
which  we  can  find  nothing  in  his  mode  of  thinking  to  authorize.  It  is, 
moreover,  evident  from  the  close  of  his  whole  argument,  which  begins  in 
the  ninth  chapter — even  if  we  do  not  view  this  single  discussion  in  its 
relation  to  the  whole  of  his  theology  and  anthropology — how  very  far  he 
was  from  thinking  of  God  as  a  being,  who  created  the  greater  part  of  the 
human  race  in  order  to  manifest  his  punitive  justice  to  them  after  in- 
volving them  in  sin  and  unbelief;  and  who  had  created  a  smaller  part  in 
order  to  manifest  his  redeeming  grace,  by  rescuing  them  from  the  sin 
into  which  they  had  been  involved  by  a  divine  destiny  ;  for  he  represents 
as  the  final  issue  of  all  the  dispensations  towards  the  generations  of  man- 
kind, not  such  a  partial,  but  the  most  general  revelation  of  the  divine  grace. 
God  hath  suffered  all,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,*  to  come  to  a  knowledge 
of  their  sin,  and  thereby  of  their  need  of  redemption,  that  he  may  mani- 
fest his  redeeming  grace  to  all  who  are  in  this  way  fitted  to  receive  it, 
Rom.  xi.  32.  Moreover,  the  doxology  with  which  he  closes  the  whole 
exposition  of  his  views  (xi.  33)  contains  a  twofold  reference, — to  the 
infinite  wisdom  of  God,  which  manifests  itself  in  the  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  among  the  Gentiles  by  an  unexpected  course  of  events, 
— and  to  the  grace  of  God,  to  which  men  are  indebted  for  all  those  bless- 
ings which  no  merits  of  their  own  could  secure.  Therefore,  in  the  dis- 
cussion which  is  closed  by  this  doxology,  there  is  only  a  reference  to  a 
divine  wisdom,  whose  proceedings  are  not  to  be  calculated  beforehand, 
according  to  any  contracted  human  theory ;  and  to  a  superabouuding 
grace  of  God,  which  anticipates  all  human  merit,  is  all-controlling  and  in 
reference  to  which  alone  everything  is  to  be  understood.  These  two  re- 
lations are  closely  connected  with  one  another;  for  as  the  superabouud- 
ing grace  of  God  is  shown  by  all,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  and  Gentiles 


*  The  great  mass  of  mankind,  as  being  either  of  Jewish  or  of  Gentile  extraction,  seems 
to  be  the  subject  of  discourse,  rather  than  individuals;  though,  in  Paul's  sense,  what  he 
here  says  is  applicable  to  the  plan  and  course  of  the  divine  dealings  with  individuals; 
the  same  preparation  for  the  appropriation  of  redemption  is  needed  for  individuals  as  for 
collective  bodies  consisting  of  individuals  ;  the  consciousness  of  the  need  of  redemption  is 
always  the  necessary  intermediate  step,  though  this  may  be  awakened  in  various  ways. 


476  WISDOM   OF   GOD   IN   REDEMPTION. 

as  well  as  Jews,  being  brought  to  a  participation  of  redemption,  so  the 
wonderful  wisdom  of  God  is  manifested  by  the  manner  in  which,  by  the 
dealings  of  his  providence  with  the  nations,  the  feeling  of  the  need  of 
redemption  as  the  necessary  preparation  for  obtaining  it,  is  developed  in 
various  ways  among  them,  according  to  their  respective  positions  and 
conditions. 

Thus,  too,  Paul  says  in  Eph.  iii.  10,  that  by  the  manner  in  which  the 
church  of  God  was  formed  among  mankind,  and  especially  in  which  the 
heathen  were  led  to  a  participation  in  redemption,  the  "  manifold  wisdom 
of  God,"  noXvTTOiitiXog  ocxpia  fov  deov,  was  manifested  ;  the  epithet  here 
given  to  the  divine  wisdom  serving  to  express  the  variety  of  methods 
by  which  it  conducted  the  development  of  mankind  to  one  end.  But  the 
praise  of  the  divine  wisdom  in  this  respect,  is  directly  opposed  to  the  hy- 
pothesis of  an  arbitrary  impartation  of  grace  and  of  an  unconditional 
divine  causation.  For  this  very  reason  divine  wisdom  was  requisite  for 
the  establishment  of  the  church  of  God  among  maukind,  because  God 
did  not  at  one  stroke  give  that  direction  to  men's  minds  which  they  re- 
quired to  attain  to  a  participation  in  redemption,  but  trained  them  to  it 
with  free  self-determination  on  their  part  according  to  their  various  de- 
grees of  enlightenment.* 

In  the  discussion  of  this  controversy,  Paul  gives  prominence  to  this 
one  point  of  view,  the  free  grace  and  independent  will  of  God,  because 
his  only  object  was  to  humble  the  pride  of  the  Jews,  and  to  awaken  in 
their  minds  the  consciousness  that  man,  by  all  his  efforts,  cannot  seize 
what  he  can  only  receive  from  the  grace  of  God  under  a  sense  of  his  own 
dependence  and  need  of  help ;  that  God  was  under  no  obligation  to 
choose  the  instruments  for  perpetuating  the  Theocracy  only  from  the 
members  of  the  theocratic  nation,  but  might  make  them  the  objects  of 
punishment.  But  from  this  we  are  by  no  means  to  infer  that  Paul  con- 
sidered that  this  grace  operated  as  a  magical,  unconditional  necessity,  or 
that  the  divine  punishment  was  an  arbitrary  act,  or,  equally  with  sin  and 
unbelief,  a  matter  of  divine  causation.  It  was  far  from  his  intention  to 
give  a  complete  theory  of  the  divine  election  of  grace,  and  its  relation  to 
free-will,  but  only  to  exhibit  it  under  that  one  special  point  of  view,  the 
absolute  freedom,  of  the  divine  act  which  could  not  have  been  foretold 
from  any  law  of  human  calculation.     It  was  therefore  natural  that,  if 

*  When  Paul  speaks  of  the  incomprehensibility  of  the  divine  dispensations  towards  the 
generations  of  men,  it  is  in  this  sense,  that  the  limited  reason  of  man  cannot  determine  d 
priori  the  proceedings  of  the  divine  government,  and  that  man  cannot  understand  its  sin- 
gle acts  till  he  can  survey  the  connexion  of  the  whole  in  its  historical  development.  But 
since  he  speaks  of  i  revelation  of  the  divine  wisdom,  it  is  evident  that  he  assumes  that  a 
knowledge  of  these  dispensations  is  possible  in  such  a  connexion.  And,  in  fact,  the  divine 
wisdoir  must  have  already  manifested  itself  conspicuously  in  the  transference  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  fr6m  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles,  and  in  the  preparation  of  the  latter  for  that 
event,  to  those  who  only  cast  a  glance  at  the  events  that  were  passing  under  their  eyes. 
The  divine  wisdom  will  also  be  discerned  at  a  future  period,  in  the  manner  of  bringing  a 
larger  body  of  the  Jewish  people  to  faith  in  the  Redeemer. 


PHARAOH    A    WARNING    TO    THE    JEWS.  477 

this  antithetical  reference  was  not  always  kept  in  view,  and  everything 
else  in  connexion  with  it,  many  particulars  Avould  be  misunderstood,  and 
a  very  one-sided  theory  of  election  would  be  formed  from  this  portion  of 
Scripture.  When  Paul  says  God  hardeneth  whom  he  will,  the  freedom 
of  the  divine  will  in  reference  to  the  divine  punishment  is  maintained 
against  the  delusion  of  the  Jews,  that  their  nation  could  not  be  an  object 
of  the  divine  displeasure.  But  that  this  punishment  should  be  condi- 
tional, depending  on  the  criminality  of  man  as"  a  free  agent,  is  by  no 
means  excluded,  but  rather  was  naturally  contained  in  the  idea  of 
hardening. 

Through  this  idea  that  law  of  the  moral  world  is  indicated,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  moral  self-determination  gives  its  direction  to  the  whole 
inward  man  ;  the  sinful  direction  of  the  will  brings  on  blindness  of  mind, 
and  the  manner  in  which  everything  from  without  operates  on  man,  de- 
pends on  this  his  inward  self-determination,  and  by  his  consequent  sus- 
ceptibility or  unsusceptibility  for  the  revelation  of  the  Divine  which 
meets  him  from  without.  And  in  this  respect,  Paul  holds  up  the  exam- 
ple of  Pharaoh  as  a  warning  to  the  Jewish  nation.  As  to  the  miracles 
which,  by  another  direction  of  his  inward  man,  might  have  led  him  to 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  divine  almightiness  in  the  dealings  of  God 
with  the  Jewish  people,  and  to  a  subjection  of  his  will  to  the  divine  will 
clearly  manifested  to  him — as  these  miracles  on  the  contrary,  only  con- 
tributed to  harden  him  in  his  self-will  and  delusion,  so  there  was  nothing 
to  prevent  God  from  acting  in  a  similar  way  Avith  the  Jewish  nation  in 
reference  to  the  reception  they  gave  to  the  revelation  of  himself  through 
Christ.  When  he  says,  that  the  Jews  by  all  their  efforts  could  attain 
nothing  ;  but  that  the  Gentiles,  on  the  contrary,  without  such  efforts  had 
been  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  God  (Rom.  ix.  30,  31);  such  lan- 
guage by  no  means  implies  that  the  conduct  of  men  makes  no  difference 
in  the  impartation  of  grace,  but  exactly  the  contrary ;  for  he  thus  ex- 
presses the  hindrance  to  the  reception  of  the  gospel  by  the  Jews  arising 
from  the  direction  of  their  minds,  from  the  state  of  their  hearts  ;  namely, 
that  a  confidence  in  their  own  "  willing  and  running"  prevented  the 
consciousness  of  their  need  of  redemption,  while  those  classes  of  heathens 
among  whom  the  gospel  was  first  propagated  were  more  easily  led  to 
embrace  it,  because  they  indulged  in  no  such  false  confidence.  And  as 
he  combated  the  presumptuous  dependence  of  the  Jews  on  their  own 
works  and  exposed  its  nullity,  so  on  the  other  hand,  he  warned  the  Gen- 
tiles against  a  false  dependence  on  divine  grace,  which  might  seduce 
them  to  a  forgetfulness  of  whnt  was  required  on  their  part  in  order  to 
its  appropriation.  He  represents  the  operations  of  grace  as  depending 
on  their  faithful  retention  on  the  part  of  man — the  remaining  in  grace 
through  the  right  direction  of  the  will,  Rom.  xi.  20.  "  Because  of  unbe- 
lief they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith."  In  another  pas- 
sage, Paul  allows  it  to  depend  entirely  on  the  direction  of  the  will  whether 
a  man  should  become  a  vessel  of  honor  or  of  dishonor.     "  If  a  man  purge 


478  THE   DIVINE   DECREES. 

himself  from  these,  he  shall  be  a  vessel  unto  honor,  2  Tim.  ii.  21.  But 
in  his  own  sphere  of  action,  the  Apostle  was  more  frequently  called  to  op- 
'pose  a  false  confidence  in  a  vain  righteousness  of  works,  than  a  false  con- 
fidence in  divine  grace  ;  and  his  own  course  of  education  led  him  particu- 
larly to  combat  the  former  error.  Both  these  circumstances  together 
had  the  effect  of  disposing  him  to  develop  the  Christian  doctrine  on  this 
side  especially,  and  to  present  what  belonged  to  it  in  the  clearest  light. 

Besides,  when  it  was  his  object  to  arouse  and  establish  the  courage 
and  confidence  of  believers,  he  could  not  direct  them  to  the  weak  and 
uncertain  power  of  man,  but  pointed  to  the  immovable  ground  of  confi- 
'  dence  in  the  counsels  of  the  divine  love  in  reference  to  their  salvation, 
the  foundation  of  what  God  had  effected  through  Christ.  The  divine 
counsel  of  salvation  must  necessarily  be  fulfilled  in  them,  nor  could  the 
accomplishment  of  this  unchangeable  divine  decree  be  prevented  by  any- 
thing which  might  happen  to  them  in  life ;  on  the  contrary,  all  things 
would  serve  to  prepare  for  its  accomplishment,  everything  which  they 
might  meet  with  in  life  must  contribute  to  their  salvation.  This  is  the 
practical  connexion  of  ideas  in  Rom.  viii.  28,  &c,  "those  whom  God  in 
his  eternal  intuition*  has  recognised  as  belonging  to  him  through  Christ, 
he  has  also  predetermined  should  be  conformed  to  the  archetype  of 
his  Son,  since  he,  having  risen  from  the  dead  in  his  glorified  human- 
ity, should  be  the  first-born  among  many  brethren.  But  those  whom 
he  had  predestined  to  this  end,  he  has  also  called  to  it ;  those  whom  he 
has  called,  he  has  also  justified  ;  those  whom  he  has  justified,  he  has  also 
glorified."  The  train  of  thought  is  therefore  this :  first,  the  divine  idea 
of  Christ,  and  of  mankind  contemplated  in  him  ;  the  divine  counsel  to 
realize  this  idea  in  believers,  to  conform  them,  as  redeemed,  to  the  arche- 
type of  Christ  by  the  completion  of  the  new  creation.  Then  the  gradual 
accomplishment  of  this  counsel ;  first,  the  calling  to  believe,  (in  the  Paul- 
ine sense,  the  outward  and  the  inward  call  are  conceived  of  as  united  in 
the  production  of  faith) ;  as  believers  they  become  justified,  and  with  be- 
lieving the  realization  of  the  dignity  of  the  children  of  God  begins  in 
their  inward  life.  That  God  gave  up  his  Son  in  order  to  secure  this 
blessing  to  them,  is  a  sure  pledge  of  their  obtaining  it,  and  that  nothing 
which  appears  to  stand  in  its  way  shall  really  obstruct,  but  on  the  con- 
trary must  serve  to  advance  it.  Consequently,  this  doctrine  of  a  timeless, 
eternal  predestination  and  election  can  by  no  possibility  be  removed 
from  its  connexion  with  the  Pauline  system ;  the  supposition  of  a  pre- 
destination conditioned  by  the  divine  prescience  is  un-Pauline;  but 
by  this  doctrine  nothing  else  is  indicated  than  the  application  of  the 
general  purpose  of  God  for  the  redemption  of  mankind  through 
Christ   as   the   ground  of  salvation   to   those   in   whom   it  is   accom- 

*  I  do  not  mean  a  knowledge  simply  resulting  from  the  divine  prescience,  which  is 
quite  foreign  to  the  connexion  of  the  passage,  but  a  creative  knowledge,  a  law  of  being  in 
the  divine  idea. 


THE   FINAL   CONSUMMATION.  479 

plished  by  virtue  of  their  believing.  The  greatness  and  certainty  of 
the  dignity  of  Christians  is  thus  evinced  ;  but  nothing  whatever  is  de- 
termined by  it  respecting  the  relation  of  the  divine  choice  to  the  free 
determination  of  the  human  will.  When  Paul,  in  Eph.  i.  4,  represents 
Christians  as  objects  of  the  divine  love  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
his  object  is  to  show  that  Christianity  was  not  inferior  to  Judaism  as  a 
new  dispensation,  but  was  in  fact  the  most  ancient  and  original,  and  pre- 
supposed by  Judaism  itself;  the  election  in  Christ  preceded  the  election 
of  the  Jewish  nation  in  their  forefathers  ;  and  redemption,  the  verification 
of  the  archetype  of  humanity  through  Christ  and  proceeding  from  him, 
is  the  end  of  the  whole  terrestrial  creation,  so  that  everything  else  appears 
as  a  preparation  for  this  highest  object  in  the  counsel  of  creation  in  refer- 
ence to  this  world.  Paul  here  treats  of  an  eternal  election  and  predesti- 
nation antecedent  to  the  creation  of  the  world,  but  not  of  an  analogous 
reprobation,  since  the  former,  but  not  the  latter,  has  an  eternal,  ideal  ba- 
sis. Reprobation  relates  only  to  a  temporal  appearance.  Those  in  whom 
the  divine  idea  fixed  in  Christ  is  not  realized,  appear  precisely  on  this 
account  as  the  excluded  from  its  realization,  in  other  words  as  the  re- 
probate.* 

Of  the  apostle  Paul's  views  in  reference  to  the  last  conflict  which  the 
kingdom  of  God  will  have  to  sustain,  and  his  expectations  of  the  victory 
to  be  gained  by  the  approaching  coming  of  the  Lord,  we  have  already 
spoken  in  our  account  of  his  ministry*;  ante,  p.  200.  The  prospects  of 
the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  bear  the  same  relation  to  the 
development  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  as  the  prophetic  intima- 
tions of  the  glorification  of  the  Theocracy  by  the  work  of  the  Redeemer 
bear  to  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  Everything 
prophetical  must  be  fragmentary,  and  hence  cannot  furnish  us  with  clear 
and  connected  knowledge.  We  cannot,  therefore,  help  considering  as  a 
vain  attempt,  the  endeavor  to  frame,  by  a  comparison  of  particular  apos- 
tolical expressions,  a  connected,  complete  doctrine  of  the  Last  Things. 
Indeed,  from  the  position  of  the  apostles,  such  a  thing  was  not  possible. 
It  might  indeed  happen,  that  in  moments  of  higher  inspiration  and  of 
special  illumination,  many  higher  but  still  isolated  views  might  be  im- 
parted, which  th«y  were  not  yet  to  combine  into  an  organic,  systematic 
unity  with  their  other  eschatological  representations. 

With  the  doctrine  of  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  is 
closely  connected,  in  the  Pauline  system,  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection. 
This  doctrine  does  not  present  itself  here  as  something  accidental  and 
isolated,  but  stands  in  intimate  relation  to  his  whole  mode  of  contemplat- 
ing the  Christian  life.  It  is  the  fundamental  view  of  Paul  and  of  the 
New  Testament  generally,  that  the  Christian  life,  which  proceeds  from 
faith  carries  in  it  the  germ  of  a  higher  futurity  ;  that  the  development 

*  Employing  the  scholastic  terminology  in  a  Pauline  sense,  we  may  say  that  the  volun- 
tas signi,  not  the  voluntas  'beneplacili,  is  hero  pointed  out. 


480  DOCTRINE   OF   THE   RESURRECTION. 

of  the  divine  life  begun  by  faith,  through  which  a  man  appropriates 
the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  and  enters  into  fellowship  with  him, 
\vill  go  on  until  it  has  pervaded  human  nature  in  its  full  extent.  Thus 
the  appropriation  of  the  body  as  an  organ  for  the  sanctified  soul,  as  a 
temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  "prepare  it  for  that  higher  state  in 
which,  glorified,  it  will  be  presented  as  the  thoroughly  corresponding 
organ  of  the  perfected  holy  soul,  Rom.  vi.  5-8,  11  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  14.  Ex- 
positors, for  want  of  entering  sufficiently  into  the  profound  views  of  the 
apostle,  and  of  grasping  the  comprehensive  survey  that  stretches  from 
the  present  into  the  future,  have  often  erred  by  a  mistaken  reference  of 
such  passages  either  solely  to  the  spiritual  resurection  of  the  present 
state,  or  solely  to  the  bodily  resurrection  of  the  future. 

The  difficulties  which  were  raised,  even  in  the  apostle's  time,  respect- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  (see  above),  were, founded  particu- 
larly on  the  gross  sensuous  conceptions  of  it,  and  on  the  customary  mode 
of  determining  the  identity  of  the  body.  Paul,  on  the  contrary,  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  teaches  that,  by 
the  same  creative  power  of  God  which  caused  a  peculiar  creation  to  pro- 
ceed from  a  grain  of  corn,  an  organ  of  the  soul  adapted  to  its  higher  con- 
dition would  be  formed  from  an  indestructible  corporeal  germ.  It  may 
be  asked,  what  is  the  essence  of  the  body  considered  as  an  organ  belong- 
ing to  a  distinct  personality?  As  such  it  is  to  be  clearly  distinguished 
from  that  sensuous  visible  form  which,  perpetually  changing  in  itself,  is 
also  perishable.  The  former,  as  something  belonging  to  the  representa- 
tion of  the  whole  personality,  will  be  restored  in  a  form  corresponding  to 
its  glorified  state.  And  as  the  body  of  man  is  the  mediating  organ  be- 
tween the  soul  and  nature,  the  idea  of  a  Palingenesis  of  the  latter  is  here 
associated  with  the  resurrection,  as  is  done  by  Paul  in  Rom.  viii. 
19-23.*     This  idea  stands  in  close  connexion  with  the  whole  of  the  Paul- 

*  The  later  distinguished  commentators  on  this  epistle  have  acknowledged  this  to  bo  the 
only  tenable  exposition ;  and  even  Usteri,  who  had  before  brought  forward  the  strongest 
objections  against  it,  has  been  induced,  for  the  same  reasons  which  appear  to  me  convincing, 
to  accede  to  it.  (See  the  last  edition  of  his  Paulinischen  Lehrbegriffe,  and  in  the  Sludien 
und  Kritiken,  1832,  part  iv.)  Against  that  interpretation,  according  to  which  this  passage 
refers  to  the  anxiety  of  the  heathen  world,  the  following  reasons  appear  to  me  decisive. 
1.  Paul  would  in  that  case  have  used,  as  he  generally  does,  the  word  "  world,"  Koa/xor.  2. 
If  we  admit  that  he  here  pointed  out  the  deeply  felt  sense  of  universal  misery,  the  feeling 
of  dissatisfaction  with  all  existing  things,  the  longing  after  something  better,  though  with- 
out a  clear  knowledge  of  the  object  desired ;  if  we  admit  that,  out  of  his  own  Christian  con- 
sciousness, he  pointed  this  feeling  to  something  unknown  to  those  whom  this  feeling  per 
vaded ;  yet  he  could  in  that  case  attribute  such  feelings  to  only  a  small  and  better  part  of 
the  world ;  it  is  impossible  that  he  could  assert  this  of  the  whole  mass  of  the  heathen 
world  sunk  in  sin.  Yet  we  must  grant  that,  in  describing  an  age  of  great  excitement,  and 
pervaded  by  a  vague  and  obscure  anxiety,  it  might  be  said,  that  an  anxiety  of  which  they 
■were  unconscious  was  at  the  bottom  of  their  wrestling  and  striving, — that  they  were  in  a 
state  of  unhappiness,  which  only  he  who  had  attained  a  higher  knowledge  could  explain 
io  them;  and  thus  Paul  might  apply  the  expressions  used  by  him  to  describe  the  spiritual 
condition  of  the  world  around  him.     But  then,  he  must  have  described  this  state  of  men's 


THE   INTERMEDIATE    STATE.  481 

ine  seheme  of  doctrine,  and  with  the  Christian  system  generally,  with  the 
inheritance  of  the  world,  KlTjfjovopiia  rov  icoofiov,  which  promises  to  be- 
lievers that  they  shall  reign  with  Christ — that  to  them  as  to  Christ  all 
things  in  the  future  world  shall  be  subject — that  this  globe  is  destined  to 
be  the  scene  of  the  triumphant  kingdom  of  God — that  in  its  progressive 
development  this  kingdom  will  subject  all  things  to  itself,  until  the  con- 
summation of  its  dominion  over  the  world  which  Paul  marks  as  the  aim 
of  this  universal  longing. 

He  usually  connects  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  life  of  the  individual  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  and  says  nothing  of  the  life  of  the  soul  in 
an  intermediate  state  after  death  till  the  end  of  all  things.  The  designation 
of  death  as  a  sleep  in  relation  to  the  resurrection  that  is  to  follow,  may 
favor  the  opinion  that  he  considered  the  state  after  death  to  be  one  of 
suppressed  consciousness  like  sleep,  and  admitted  that  the  soul  would 
first  be  awakened  at  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  though  in  every  other 
reference  to  death  he  could  describe  it  under  the  image  of  sleep  as  a 
transition  to  a  higher  existence.  When  in  the  church  at  Thessalonica 
the  anxieties  of  many  were  excited  respecting  the  fate  of  the  believers 
who  had  already  died,  he  only  intimates  to  them  that,  at  the  time  of 
Christ's  second  coming,  the  believers  then  alive  would  have  no  advan- 
tage over  those  who  were  already  dead.  But  it  might  be  supposed,  that 
had  he  admitted  a  continuance  of  consciousness  in  more  exalted  and  in- 
timate communion  with  the  Lord  as  taking  place  immediately  after 
death,  he  would  have  reminded  the  persons  whose  minds  were  disturbed 
on  the  subject,  that  those  for  whom  they  mourned  had  already  been  ad- 
mitted to  a  higher  and  blessed  communion  with  their  Lord,  as  a  later 
Father  in  the  Church  would  not  have  failed  to  do. 

Yet  since  Paul  was  convinced  that  by  faith  men  pass  from  death  unto 
life* — since  he  testified  from  his  own  experience  under  manifold  suffer- 


minds  as  something  strictly  peculiar  to  that  age,  and  not  as  having  existed  up  to  that  moment 
from  the  beginning,  ever  since  the  creation  had  been  subject  to  this  bondage.  3.  Accord- 
ing to  his  own  ideas,  he  could  not  say  that  the  world  against  its  will  was  subjected,  in  a 
manner  free  from  blame,  by  God  himself  to  the  bondage  of  a  vain  existence.  4.  Accord- 
ing to  this  interpretation,  Paul  must  have  taught,  that  as  soon  as  the  children  of  God  had 
attained  their  destined  glory,  this  glory  would  spread  itself  over  the  heathen  world,  which 
would  then  enter  into  the  communion  of  the  divine  life.  But  if  it  be  assumed  that  Paul  hero 
so  openly  and  clearly  expressed  the  doctrine  of  a  universal  restitution,  and  presupposed  it  as 
something  known,  he  must  first  have  mentioned  the  appropriation  of  redemption  by  faith 
as  a  means  of  salvation  equally  necessary  for  all ;  he  could  not  have  admitted  the  possi- 
bility of  such  a  state  of  glorification  not  brought  about  through  faith  in  the  Redeemer. 

*  For  although  he  has  not  expressed  this  in  precisely  the  same  terms  as  John,  yet  the 
thought  here  expressed  follows  of  course  from  what  he  has  repeatedly  asserted  respecting 
deliverance  from  spiritual  death,  and  the  making  alive  by  faith.  Between  the  two  apostles 
there  is  only  a  difference  of  form,  not  of  the  use  they  make  of  the  idea  of"  life,"  &rj, — 
for  in  this  they  agree,  in  considering  it  as  something  that  really  enters  tho  soul  with 
belioving;  but  John  refers  the  idea  of  "  eternal  life,"  far/ aluvios,  to  the  present,  Paul 
only  to  the  future,   although  both  thoroughly  agree  in  the   recognition  of  tho  divine  life 


482  THE    INTERMEDIATE    STATE. 

ings,  that  while  the  outward  man  perished,  the  inward  was  renewed 
day  by  day,  2  Cor.  iv.  16,  and  since  this  experience  was  to  him  a  type  of 
the  future, that  the  outward  man  will  only  pass  to  a  higher  life  from  the 
final  dissolution  of  death — since  he  received  a  progressive  development 
of  the  divine  life  in  communion  with  the  Redeemer — since  he  taught  that 
believers  will  follow  the  Saviour  in  all  things — from  all  these  considera- 
tions it  necessarily  followed,  that  the  higher  life  of  believers  can  not  be 
interrupted  by  death,  and  that  by  means  of  it  they  may  attain  to  a  more 
complete  participation  in  Christ's  divine  and  blessed  life.  This  idea  of  a 
progressive  development  of  the  divine  life  in  communion  with  the  Re- 
deemer, is  indeed  not  a  foreign  element  introduced  into  the  doctrine  of 
the  Apostle,  but  proceeds  from  his  own  peculiar  mode  of  contemplation, 
as  we  learn  from  a  comparison  of  his  language  in  numberless  passages. 
True,  we  are  not  sufficiently  justified  to  conclude  from  that  idea  of  such 
a  process  of  development  in  the  earthly  life,  that  Paul  believed  in  its  pro- 
gression after  the  close  of  our  earthly  life,  in  the  period  intervening  till 
the  resurrection.  We  may  imagine  the  possibility  that  the  consequences 
flowing  from  those  premises  would  not  be  consciously  developed  by  him, 
since  the  thoughts  of  the  resurrection  and  everlasting  life  were  in  his  mind 
so  closely  connected  that  he  would  be  induced  to  leave  the  interval 
between  the  death  of  believers  and  their  resurrection  as  an  empty  space. 
But,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  viii.  10,  Paul  expressly  makes  this  dis- 
tinction between  the  soul  and  the  body,  that  the  latter  will  die,  and  be 
given  up  to  death  on  account  of  sin,  the  germ  of  which  it  carries  in  itself, 
but  the  former  will  by  means  of  the  life  of  its  indwelling  righteousness 
be  exalted  above  death,  so  that  death  will  have  no  power  over  it ;  accor- 
dingly, their  life  will  be  exposed  to  no  repression  or  destruction,  but  be 
in  a  state  of  progressive  development  never  again  to  be  interrupted  by 
death.  And  the  conclusion  which  we  may  draw  from  this  single  passage, 
is  confirmed  by  those  passages  in  the  later  Pauline  epistles,  which  inti- 
mate that  higher  degrees  of  communion  with  Christ  and  of  happiness  are 
immediately  consequent  on  death.  The  admission  of  this  fact  is  by  no 
means  contradicted  by  his  representing  that  the  last  and  greatest  result 
in  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  will  proceed,  not  from  its 
natural  spontaneous  development,  but  from  without  by  the  immediate 
event  of  Christ's  final  coming  ;  as,  in  the  same  manner,  the  facts  of  the 
appearance  of  the  Son  of  God  in  humanity,  redemption,  and  regeneration, 
though  they  are  not  deduced  from  a  preceding  development,  and  consti- 
tute a  perfectly  new  era  in  the  spiritual  life,  are  far  from  excluding,  but 
rather  presuppose,  an  antecedent  preparatory  development.  Now,  the 
later  epistles  of  Paul  contain  such  passages,  in  which  he  expresses  most 
decidedly  the  hope  of  a  higher  development  immediately  consequent  on 
death,  of  a  divine  life  of  blessedness  in  more  complete  communion  with 

founded  in  faith,  which  bears  in  it  the  germ  of  a  future  higher  development,  anticipates 
the  future,  and  contains  it  in  itself  as  in  bud. 


THE    INTERMEDIATE    STATE.  483 

Christ ;  Philip,  i.  21,  23.  We  cannot  in  truth  perceive  how  Paul,  if  he 
supposed  the  second  coming  of  Christ  and  the  resurrection  to  be  events 
so  very  near,  could  say,  that  he  "  desired  to  depart  and  to  be  with  Christ 
which  is  far  better,"  in  case  he  placed  the  salutary  consequences  of  death 
only  in  something  negative — in  freedom  from  the  toils  and  conflicts  of 
earthly  life,  under  which,  as  he  so  often  declared,  he  experienced  so  much 
more  intensely  the  blessed  effects  of  the  gospel  on  his  own  soul, — and 
had  not  contemplated  a  higher  kind  of  presence  with  Christ,  a  higher 
development  of  the  life  which  was  rooted  in  communion  with  him  as  a 
consequence  of  death.  Must  not  a  man  of  Paul's  flaming  zeal  and  holy 
activity  have  preferred  such  a  life  of  conflict  for  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
to  a  slumbering  and  dreaming  existence  or  a  life  of  shadows?  In  2  Tim. 
iv.  18,  he  also  describes  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ  as  im- 
mediately following  death  ;  though  this  last  passage  is  not  so  decisive, 
as  the  interpretation  in  this  point  of  view  may  be  disputed.* 

It  may  perhaps  be  thoughtf  that  a  progress  on  this  subject  in  the 
development  of  Christian  knowledge  took  place  in  Paul's  mind.  -As  long 
as  he  expected  the  second  coming  of  Christ  and  the  final  resurrection  as 
very  near  at  hand,  he  had  little  occasion  to  separate  from  one  another 
the  ideas  of  an  eternal  life  after  death  and  of  a  resurrection  ;  and,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Jewish  habits  of  thinking,  he  blended  them  together 
in  a  manner  that  led  to  the  idea  of  a  certain  sleep  of  the  soul  after  death. 
But  when,  by  the  course  of  events  and , the  signs  of  the  times,  he  had 
learned  to  form  clearer  notions  of  the  future,  and  when  he  was  induced 
to  think  that  the  last  decisive  epoch  was  not  so  very  near  (as  appears 
from  his  later  epistles),  the  idea  of  a  highei'  condition  of  happiness  be- 
ginning immediately  after  death  must  have  developed  itself  in  his  mind, 
under  the  illumination  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  from  the  consciousness  of  the 
divine  life  as  exalted  above  death,  and  as  perpetually  progressing,  and 
from  the  consciousness  of  unbroken  communion  with  the  Redeemer  as 
the  Divine  fountain  of  life.  The  illumination  of  the  Apostles'  minds  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  surely  not  completed  at  once  ;  but  was  the  operation 
of  a  higher  inciting  power  that  possessed  a  creative  fertility,  and  under 
whose  influences  their  Christian  knowledge  and  thinking  progressively 
developed,  by  means  of  higher  revelations  which  were  not  violently  forced 
upon  them,  but  coalesced  in  a  natural  manner  with  their  psychological 
development.^  As  Peter,  through  the  illumination  of  the  divine  Spirit 
at  precisely  that  point  of  time  in  his  ministry  where  it  was  required, 
came  to  understand  that  the  Gentiles,  through  faith  alone  in  the  Re- 
deemer, should  be  incorporated  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  so  could  it 

*  The  noticeable  remarks  by  repetent  "Weizel  of  Tubingen,  in  his  essay  on  the  original 
Christian  doctrine  of  Immortality,  in  the  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1836,  Part  iv.,  have  not 
occasioned  any  alteration  in  my  views  on  this  subject. 

f  This  seems  to  be  the  view  taken  by  Usteri. 

X  See  above,  p.  66. 


484  Paul's  progressive  knowledge. 

also  happen  with  Paul  that  he  should  be  led  to  a  more  perfect  under 
standing  of  the  truth  exactly  at  that  point  of  time  when  it  was  required 
for  his  own  religious  necessities  and  those  of  future  generations.  But  it 
is  against  this  supposition  that,  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  he  expresses  himself  on  death  and  the  resur- 
rection, in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
and  yet  we  find  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  written  some 
months  later,  a  confident  expectation  expressed,  that  a  life  of  a  higher 
kind  in  communion  with  Christ  would  immediately  succeed  the  dissolu- 
tion of  earthly  existence ;  for  it  is  impossible  to  understand  2  Cor.  v.  6- 
&  in  a  different  sense,  where  Paul  marks  as  correlative  ideas,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  remaining  in  the  earthly  body  and  being  absent  from  the  Lord 
(a  want  of  that  higher  immediate  communion  with  him  which  would 
belong  to  an  existence  in  the  other  world),  a  condition  in  which  we  live 
by  faith ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  departure  from  earthly  life,  and 
being  admitted  to  the  immediate  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  to  an  intimate 
communion  with  him  no  longer  concealed  under  the  veil  of  faith.  How 
could  he  have  described  what  he  longed  for,  as  a  departure  from  this 
earthly  life  and  a  being  present  with  the  Lord,  if  he  intended  to  describe 
that  change  which  would  arise  from  the  final  coming  of  Christ,  from  his 
coming  to  believers  ?  We  also  find  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, the  same  views  presented  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  ;  yet 
it  is  not  probable  that  in  the  few  months  between  the  time  of  his  writing 
the  First  and  the  Second  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  such  a  revolution 
had  taken  place  in  his  mode  of  thinking  on  this  subject.  From  a  com- 
parison of  the  First  and  Second  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  we  may 
therefore  conclude  that  Paul,  even  when,  in  his  earlier  statements 
respecting  the  resurrection,  he  said  nothing  of  the  state  of  the  souls  of 
individual  believers  in  the  interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection, 
though  the  uninterrupted  development  of  a  higher  life  after  death  is  not 
excluded  by  him.  We  must  then  suppose,  either  that  he  did  not  par- 
ticularly bring  this  thought  forward,  because  he  was  accustomed  to  found 
all  the  hopes  of  believers  on  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  to  connect 
them  with  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  because  also  he  thought  that 
last  great  event  so  nigh,  and  was  so  constantly  turning  his  attention  to  it ; 
or  that  he  had  not  directed  his  thoughts  to  the  time  that  intervenes 
between  death  and  the  resurrection.  But  as  he  became  aware  that  the 
period  of  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  not  so  nigh  as 
he  had  formerly  anticipated,  he  was  induced  to  bring  forward  more 
distinctly  a  subject  which  had  hitherto  been  kept  in  the  background. 
We  discern  in  Paul  a  progressive  knowledge  of  Eschatology  generally, 
as  it  grew  up  under  the  enlightening  and  guiding  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  when  we  compare  his  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  with  his 
later  ones,  the  lifting  up  of  believers  to  an  ever-enduring  fellowship  with 
the  Lord,  1  Thess.  iv.  17,  with  the  later  developed  doctrine  of  a  glorified 


END   OF  THE   MEDIATORIAL   KINGDOM.  485 

earth  as  the  seat  of  the  perfected  kingdom  of  God ;  and  2  Thess.  i.  7-9, 
with  the  doctrine  of  a  final  restitution  announced  at  a  later  period. 

Paul  represents  as  the  ultimate  object  of  his  hopes,  the  complete  vic- 
tory of  the  kingdom  of  God  over  all  the  evil  which  had  hitherto  pre- 
vented its  realization,  over  everything  which  checked  and  obscured  the 
development  of  the  divine  life.  Believers,  in  their  complete  personality 
transformed  and  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  death,  will  perfectly  reflect 
the  image  of  Christ,  and  be  introduced  into  {he  perfect  communion  of 
his  divine,  holy,  blessed,  and  unchangeable  life.  The  perfected  kingdom 
of  God  among  mankind  will  then  blend  itself  harmoniously  with  all  the 
other  forms  of  divine  manifestation  throughout  his  infinite  dominions. 
Inspired  by  the  prospect  of  this  last  triumph  of  redemption,  when  sin 
with  ail  its  consequences,  death  and  all  evil,  shall  be  entirely  overcome, 
in  the  certain  knowledge  of  the  victory  already  won  by  Christ,  the 
pledge  of  all  that  will  follow,  Paul  exclaims  (l  Cor.  xv.  55-58),  "  Where, 
Death,  is  now  thy  sting?  (Death  has  now  lost  its  power  to  wound  the 
redeemed  from  sin,  since  they  are  already  conscious  of  an  eternal  divine 
life.)  Where,  Grave,  is  thy  victory  ?  (the  victory  which  the  kingdom 
of  death  gained  through  sin.)  But  the  sting  of  death  is  sin ;  that 
which  causes  the  power  of  sin  to  be  felt  is  the  law.  (What  the  law 
could  not  do,  which  made  us  first  feel  the  power  of  sin  in  its  whole  extent, 
Christ  has  accomplished  by  redeeming  us  from  sin  and  thus  from  death.) 
But  God  be  thanked,  who  hath  given  us  the  victory  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  Inasmuch,  now,  as  by  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  to  be 
understood  a  mediatorial  dispensation  founded  specially  in  redemption, 
a  dispensation  in  which  the  universal  kingdom  of  God,  overcoming  the 
kingdom  of  evil,  shall  be  carried  forward  to  a  perfect  realization  of 
all  that  in  principle  is  involved  in  redemption,  this  kingdom  of  Christ, 
designed  to  take  the  special  form  given  to  it,  when  it  shall  have  reached 
its  appointed  goal,  when,  through  the  efficiency  of  the  glorified  Christ, 
it  shall  have  been  carried  to  that  point  where  it  will  have  no  more  op- 
position to  encounter  and  will  no  longer  need  a  Redeemer  and  Mediator, 
will  come  to  an  end.  Then  will  God  himself  in  an  immediate  manner  work 
all  things  in  those  who  through  Christ  have  attained  to  perfect  com- 
munion with  him,  who  are  freed  from  everything  that  opposed  the  divine 
operation  in  their  souls,  and  who  have  been  transformed  into  undimmed 
organs  of  God,  for  whose  glory  all  things  shall  serve.  The  mediatorial 
kingdom  of  God  will  then  merge  into -the  immediatorial.  Such  is  the 
declaration  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28. 

It  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  errors  when  that  which  Paul  designates  as 
the  final  limit  of  a  future  development,  is  pantheistically  conceived  of,  in 
falsely  applied  conceptions  of  an  age  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  limit  of  the 
present  earthly  development  lying  beyond  Christianity.  Never  will  there 
be  a  development  free  from  sin  on  earth— never  a  development  which 
may  have  outgrown  the  need  of  redemption,  which  may  have  transcended 
Christ  and  Christianity. 


486  THE   CONSUMMATION   OF   ALL  THINGS. 

But  if  we  understand  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  words,  what  is  said 
in  that  passage  of  the  universal  subjection  and  conquest  of  all  the 
enemies  of  God's  kingdom,  it  would  follow,  that  all  subjective  opposi- 
tion to  the  will  of  God  will  then  cease,  and  that  a  perfect  union  of  the 
will  of  the  creature  with  that  of  the  Creator  will  universally  prevail. 
This  will  necessarily  be  the  case,  if  we  understand  the  words,  v.  28,  "  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all,"*  in  absolute  universality  ;  for  then  it  would  fol- 
low, that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  realized  subjectively  in  all  rational 
creatures,  and  that  nothing  ungodlike  will  any  longer  exist.  Then  would 
be  fulfilled,  in  the  most  complete  sense,  what  Paul  expresses  in  Rom.  xi. 
32.  But  though  this  interpretation  is  in  itself  possible,  and  founded  on 
the  words,  still  we  are  not  sufficiently  justified  by  the  connexion  to  un- 
derstand the  expression  in  an  unlimited  sense.  If  that  subjection  were 
to  be  understood  as  only  objective  and  compulsory,  it  might  be  affirmed 
that  the  enemies  of  God's  kingdom  will  have  no  more  power  to  under- 
take anything  against  it,  that  they  will  no  longer  be  able  to  exert  a  dis- 
turbing influence  on  its  development.  By  the  "  all,"  Tract,  in  whom  God 
will  be  "  all,"  to,  navra,  we  may  understand  merely  believers,  as  in  v. 
22  by  "  all,"  7raVr£c,f  those  who  enter  by  faith  into  communion  with 
Christ ;  and  it  certainly  appears  from  the  connexion  to  be  Paul's  design 
only  to  represent  what  belongs  to  the  perfect  realization  of  Christ's  work 
for  believers. 

Yet  this  does  not  forbid  our  supposing  that  the  spirit  of  Paul,  com- 
prehending all  things  to  the  last  closing  point  of  the  development  of 
redemption  and  salvation  in  one  vast  contemplation,  might  have  raised 
itself  above  the  limits  of  the  proposition  lying  immediately  before  him, 
and  taken  in  the  final  result,  which  would  resolve  all  disharmony  into 
perfect  unison.  And  it  would  be  the  most  natural  construction  to  sup- 
pose an  interval  between  what  is  stated  in  1  Cor.  xv.  23,  and  in  the  fol- 
lowing verse,  and  in  this  interval  those  developments  might  take  place 
which  would  contribute  to  bring  on  the  last  end  of  universal  restoration  : 
first  of  all,  the  resurrection  and  perfect  blessedness  of  believers  ;  and  then 
the  general  resurrection  of  all,  freed  from  sin,  transfigured  to  a  divine 
life,  when  God  shall  be  all  in  all.  But  it  is  worthy  of  notice  how  imme- 
diately Paul  comes  to  the  "  then,"  elra.  It  appears  that  here  he  wished 
rather  to  intimate  than  to  express  and  develop. 

The  words  in  Philip,  ii.  10,  11,  may  indeed  be  supposed  to  mean,  that 
all  rational  beings  are  to  be  subjected  to  the  Redeemer  as  their  Lord, 
although  this  will  not  be  accomplished  with  respect  to  all  in  the  same 
manner ;  in  some  there  may  be  a  subjective,  hearty,  free  obedience,  in 
others  only  what  is  outward  and  compulsory,  the  obedience  of  impotence, 
which  can  effect  nothing  against  the  kingdom  of  Christ. — Meanwhile  the 

*  nuaiv  may  be  taken  either  as  masculine  or  neuter. 

f  If  the  emphasis  be  laid,  not  on  the  wdvrec,  but  on  the  kv  ro  Xpcaru), — that  here 
everything  proceeds  from  Christ,  as  on  the  other  side  from  Adam. 


THE   CONSUMMATION    OF    ALL   THINGS.  487 

question  arises,  whether  in  the  words  "  bow  the  knee  at  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  confess  that  he  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God,"  something  more 
is  not  meant  than  a  description  of  such  forced,  outward  obedience,  if  we 
understand  these  words  according  to  the  Pauline  use  of  terms.*  We 
should  interpret  the  passage  in  Coloss.  i.  20  in  the  simplest  and  most 
natural  manner,  if  we  could  admit  such  a  reference  to  the  reconciling 
and  redeeming  work  of  Christ  on  the  fallen  spiritual  world.  And  we 
could  then  combine  in  one  view  the  three  passages,  and  interpret  them 
by  a  mutual  comparison.  We  should  thus  recognise  a  magnificent 
prospect  of  the  final  triumph  of  the  work  of  redemption,  a  prospect  which 
rose  before  the  mind  of  the  great  Apostle  only  in  the  last  stage  of  his 
Christian  development,  when  his  conceptions  had  been  progressively 
clarified  by  means  of  that  love  which  impelled  him  to  sacrifice  himself 
for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  At  all  events,  we  find  here  only  some 
slight  intimations,  and  we  recognize  the  guidance  of  divine  wisdom, 
that  in  the  records  of  revelation  destined  for  such  various  steps  of  reli- 
gious development,  no  more  light  has  been  communicated  on  this  subject. 


CHAPTER     II. 

THE   DOCTRINE    OF    THE    EPISTLE   TO    THE    HEBREWS. 

We  wish  here  to  glance  at  that  type  of  doctrine  peculiar  to  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  whom  we  find  the  leading 
points  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  under  a  peculiar  form,  as  held  by  a  man 
of  independent  mind,  who  differed  from  Paul  in  his  constitutional  qual- 
ities, in  his  mental  training,  and  in  the  mode  of  his  transition  from  Ju- 
daism to  Christianity.  As  to  the  first  point,  the  author  of  this  Epistle 
seems  to  stand  to  the  apostle  in  the  same  relation  as  Melancthon  to  Lu- 
ther ;  the  one  quiet  and  gentle,  the  other  ardent  and  energetic.  As  to 
their  education,  Paul  was  brought  up  in  the  school  of  Pharisaism ;  in 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  recognise  the  training  of 
an  Alexandrian  Jew.  Hence  arose  the  difference  between  the  two,  that 
Paul  received  a  more  dialectic  education,  by  which  his  logical  faculties 
were  still  further  developed,  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews a  more  rhetorical  one ;  though  Paul,  like  Luther,  possessed  in  a 

*  The  doctrine  of  such  a  universal  restitution  would  not  stand  in  contradiction  to  tho 
doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  as  the  latter  appears  in  the  Gospels ;  for  although  those  who 
are  hardened  in  wickedness,  left  to  the  consequences  of  their  conduct,  their  merited  fate, 
have  to  expect  endless  unhappiness,  yet  a  hidden  purpose  of  the  divine  compassion  is  not 
necessarily  excluded,  hy  virtue  of  which,  through  the  wisdom  of  God  revealing  itself  in 
the  discipline  of  free  agents,  they  will  be  led  to  a  free  appropriation  of  redemption. 


488  THE   DOCTEISTE    OF 

very  high  degree  the  gift  of  natural  eloquence.  Lastly,  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  appears  to  have  made  the  transition  from  Ju- 
daism to  Christianity,  not,  like  Paul,  by  a  sudden  crisis,  but  by  a  more 
quiet,  gradual  development,  in  which  the  higher  spirit  concealed  under 
the  forms  of  Judaism  revealed  itself  to  him.  Accordingly,  we  must  con- 
sider his  twofold  relation  to  the  Alexandrian-Jewish  and  to  the  Pauline 
theology.  Several  differences  in  the  development  of  doctrine  between 
these  two  great  teachers  of  the  church,  maybe  explained  from  the  pecu- 
liar design  of  this  Epistle,  which  was  addressed  to  a  community  of  Chris- 
tians, who,  though  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  had  found  ready  accept- 
ance with  them,  were  still  enthralled  in  the  forms  of  Judaism.* 

*  This  view  we  must  maintain,  notwithstanding  the  reasons  alleged  against  it  by  Dr. 
Roth  in  his  Latin  Dissertation  (Frankfort,  1836),  in  which  he  endeavors  to  show  that  this 
epistle  was  addressed  to  the  church  at  Ephesus,  consisting  of  Gentile  Christians.  As  the 
epistle  perfectly  suits  a  church  consisting  of  Jewish  Christians,  and  the  difficulties  attached 
to  this  hypothesis  are  only  superficial,  so  we  cannot,  on  the  other  hand,  conceive  of  a 
church  of  Gentile  Christians  to  whom  an  epistle  could  be  addressed  in  such  a  form  and  of 
such  contents.  And,  on  the  latter  supposition,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  explain  the  mani- 
festly close  connexion  of  the  didactic  and  parenetical  elements  from  its  commencement, 
since  a  church  consisting  of  Gentile  Christians  might  be  forced  by  persecution  to  fall  back 
into  Heathenism,  but  never  from  such  a  cause,  to  pass  over  to  Judaism.  The  contents  of 
this  epistle,  which  tend  to  show  the  superiority  of  Christianity  to  Judaism,  would  there- 
fore by  no  means  be  adapted  to  the  purpose  of  encouraging  its  readers  to  constancy  under 
persecutions.  Dr.  Roth  appeals  to  chap.  iii.  12;  but  apostasy  from  the  living  God  need 
not  be  exactly  a  relapse  into  idolatry,  for  as  communion  with  God,  according  to  the  con- 
victions of  the  writer,  could  only  be  through  Christ,  so  an  apostasy  from  Christ  must  in  his 
esteem  have  been  equivalent  to  apostasy  from  the  living  God.  Still  less  can  the  passage 
in  chap.  x.  32  be  adduced  in  evidence,  for  doubtless  divine  illumination  appeared  to  the 
author  as  necessarily  depending  on  the  gospel ;  and  a  transition  from  any  other  religious 
position,  in  which  men  could  not  be  set  free  from  the  dominion  of  the  principle  of  sin, 
was  looked  upon  by  him  as  a  transition  from  darkness  to  light.  The  same  remark  applies 
to  chap.  vi.  4.  Also,  the  enumeration  of  points  of  instruction  for  catechumens  in  chap.  vi. 
1,  does  not  prove  that  they  were  only  such  as  would  be  imparted  to  heathens ;  for  by  "  re- 
pentauce  from  dead  works,"  the  author  no  doubt  understands  conversion  from  all  ungod- 
liness, and  by  nictTig  in  this  connexion,  agreeably  to  the  Pauline  ideas,  he  meant  faith  in 
the  peculiarl}'-  Christian  sense  ;  so  that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  is  iucluded  in  it,  which 
in  articles  of  instruction  for  heatheDS  must  also,  we  allow,  have  been  rendered  very  pro- 
minent. Besides,  for  the  instruction  of  Jews  passing  over  to  Christianity,  it  was  requisite 
to  explain  the  nature  of  Christian  baptism,  in  relation  to  that  of  John  and  other  kinds  of 
lustration ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  and  of  the  judgment,  though  already  ac- 
knowledged by  the  greater  part  of  the  Jews,  must  in  its  connexion  with  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  be  promulgated  afresh  with  many  peculiar  modifications.  Thus  the 
author  enumerates  those  universal  articles  of  primary  religious  instruction,  which  needed  to 
be  addressed  to  Jews  as  well  as  to  Gentiles.  From  chap.  xiii.  9,  it  does  not  follow  that 
his  readers  had  never  before  observed  the  Jewish  laws  relating  to  food,  and  therefore  were 
not  Jews,  but  only,  that  according  to  the  supposition  of  the  writer  of  the  epistle,  they  no 
longer  as  Christ  ians  placed  their  dependence  on  such  outward  things.  At  all  events,  by 
"the  divers  and  strange  doctrines,"  some  peculiar  opinions  must  be  understood  which 
were  placed  by  the  false  teachers  in  connexion  with  the  Jewish  laws  on  food.  The  pas- 
sage in  chap.  xi.  40,  can  only  be  intended  to  mark  a  later  generation  (in  this  case  no  mat- 
ter whether  of  Jewish  or  Gentile  descent),  which  had  not  yet  come  into  existence,  and 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  489 

Paul  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  agree  in  this,  that 
they  both  represent  Judaism  as  inadequate  for  satisfying  the  religious 
wants  of  man.  This  is  the  purport  of  what  is  said  in  chap.  vii.  19,  that 
Judaism  could  "  make  nothing  perfeet ;"  its  religious  institutions  were 
not  fitted  to  realize  the  ideas  presented  by  them  to  the  conscience ;  the 
sacrifices  and  the  priesthood  were  unable  to  satisfy  that  religious  want, 
to  which  both  OAved  their  existence ;  namely,  to  accomplish  the  removal 
of  the  disunion  between  God  and  man.  Those  religious  ideas  were  here 
represented  in  sensible  images,  which  were  first  realized  by  Christianity. 
Both  Paul  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  place  the  cen- 
tral point  of  religion  in  redemption  from  guilt  and  sin,  the  restoration  of 
communion  with  God,  whence  proceeds  the  impartation  of  a  divine  life, 
the  source  of  true  holiness ;  and  the  inability  of  Judaism  to  attain  this 
object  formed,  in  the  estimation  of  both,  its  essential  defect.  In  this 
Epistle  (viii.  12  ;  vi.  4;  ix.  15)  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  communication 
of  a  new  divine  life,  of  divine  power  for  sanctification,  are  described  as 
the  work  of  Christ — as  the  effect  of  Christianity;  it  is  maintained,  that 
by  this  new  principle  of  life,  the  redeemed  are  able  to  render  true  spirit- 
ual worship,  which  comprehends  the  whole  life,  so  that  now  the  whole 
soul,  animated  by  a  new  spirit,  becomes  a  thank-offering  for  the  grace 
of  redemption  bestowed  upon  it  (xii.  28  ;  ix.  14;  xiii.  15);  and  in  the 
same  manner  Paul  contemplates  the  whole  Christian  life  as  true  spiritual 
worship. 

But  these  two  writers  differ  in  their  manner  of  carrying  out  the 
fundamental  ideas  which  they  hold  in  common.  Paul,  in  opposition  to 
the  merit  of  works  as  regarded  in  the  light  of  the  law,  and  especially 
against  the  tenet  that  an  observance  of  the  law  was  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  Gentiles  in  order  to  salvation — develops  his  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone,  independently  of  the  works  of  the  law.  This  doc- 
trine that  no  one  could  become  righteous  before  God  by  the  observance 
of  the  law,  but  only  through  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  and  Redeemer, 
lies  also  at  the  basis  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  since  the  author 
of  this  epistle  directs  his  argumentation  especially  against  those  who 
were  still  captivated  by  the  pomp  of  the  Temple  worship,  the  priesthood 
and  the  sacrifices,  and  were  in  danger  of  being  entirely  seduced  from 
Christianity  by  the  impression  these  objects  made  upon  them,  this  gave 
a  peculiar  direction  to  his  reasoning,  and  it  aimed  at  showing  that  by  all 
this  ritual  their  religious  wants  could  not  be  satisfied,  but  that  its  only 


therefore  would  not  bave  attained  to  a  participation  in  the  Messianic  kingdom,  if  this  king- 
dom had  commenced  earlier,  and  thus  the  development  of  the  human  race  had  been  sooner 
closed.  According  to  Dr.  Roth's  interpretation,  it  would  also  have  been  necessary  for  the 
author  to  have  addressed  his  leaders  in  the  second  person,  for  the  rhetorical  figure  Ana- 
koinosis  would  have  been  as  inapplicable  in  the  epistle  generally,  on  the  supposition  that 
its  author  was  of  Jewish  descent,  as  it  would  be  in  chap.  ii.  3,  on  the  supposition  that 
Paul  was  its  author. 


490  THE   DOCTKINE    OF 

use  was  to  direct  them  to  the  sole  true  means  of  satisfaction.  As  Paul 
declared  that  the  law  could  not  bestow  the  justification  which  man  re- 
quired, but  that  it  only  awakened  that  feeling  of  want  which  nothing 
but  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Redeemer  could  satisfy,  so  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  it  is  shown,  that  the  mediation  required  by  man's  relation  to 
God  and  heaven,  could  not  be  effected  by  the  Jewish  priesthood,  but 
that  it  only  availed  to  call  forth  a  longing  for  such  a  mediation,  and  thus 
to. point  to  Him  who  alone  could  bestow  it. 

But  in  one  respect  an  opposition  may  seem  to  exist  between  the 
Pauline  views  and  the  doctrinal  scheme  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Paul  contemplates  Judaism  as  abolished.  Everything  in  religion  is  repre- 
sented as  proceeding  from  faith  in  Christ  alone;  in  receiving  the  gospel  a 
man  is  in  effect  dead  to  his  former  religious  position;  whatever  was  before 
the  ground  of  his  confidence,  now  appears  to  him  as  an  absolute  nullity. 
On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  views  presented  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  whole  Jewish  cultus  is,  it  is  true,  only  a  shadowy  image 
of  something  superior;  but  the  writer  considers  it  as  still  continuing  to 
exist  till  everything  earthly,  and  consequently  this  form  of  earthly  wor- 
ship, shall  come  to  an  end,  when  the  Messianic  kingdom  being  consum- 
mated, a  higher  order  of  things  shall  succeed.  Thus  we  may  here  meet 
with  a  view,  which  was  peculiar  to  the  original  Jewish-Christian  belief 
generally,  that  the  communion  with  the  sanctuary  of  heaven  bestowed 
by  Christianity,  would  be  carried  on  in  this  world  in  combination  with 
the  forms  of  a  cultus  which  typified  heavenly  things  ;  that  a  new  higher 
spirit  would  continue  to  operate  in  the  ancient  forms  of  religion.  But 
still  this  is  only  an  apparent  contradiction  between  the  two  great 
teachers ;  for  it  is  evident  from  the  train  of  thought  in  this  epistle,  that 
the  writer  looked  on  the  Jewish  cultus  as  entirely  superfluous,  since  it 
can  contribute  nothing  whatever  towards  effecting  communion  with 
heaven  and  reconciliation  with  God,  on  which  everything  depends.  But 
since  Christianity  effects  all  this,  since  it  bestows  everything  de- 
manded by  the  religious  wants  of  man,  what  need  can  there  be  of 
another  cultus  ? 

If,  in  connexion  with  such  views,  the  Jewish  cultus  could  still  find  a 
place,  the  only  point  of  junction  could  be,  the  representation  that  the 
conscientious  observance  of  all  that  belonged  to  the  Mosaic  cultus,  would 
be  a  preparatory  purifying  and  sanctifying  process,  to  qualify  for  the 
participation  of  divine  things  through  the  medium  of  Christianity.  This 
was  the  position  from  which  Philo,  in  his  work  De  Migratione  Abra- 
hami,  combats  a  religious  idealism  which  would  have  explained  away 
the  whole  of  outward  Judaism  as  superfluous.  But  in  this  epistle  we 
can  find  no  trace  of  attributing  such  a  continual  preparatory  utility  to 
Judaism  ;  according  to  its  fundamental  ideas,  connexion  with  Christ 
as  the  true  high-priest  renders  superfluous  all  other  methods  of  purifica- 
tion and  sanctification.  If  the  author  of  this  epistle  had  some  notion 
that  these  outward  forms  of  Judaism,  whose  design  was  only  prepara« 


THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBKEWS.  491 

tive  and  typical,  would  linger  in  existence  till  the  whole  terrestrial 
economy  would  be  terminated  by  the  second  advent  of  Christ  at  no  very 
distant  period,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he  considered  these  forms  as 
of  essential  importance.  We  must  only  bear  in  mind  in  what  light  the 
author  viewed  the  relation  of  the  present  to  the  future.  This  relation 
was  the  same  in  his  conceptions  as  in  Paul's.  To  Christians  the  future 
is  by  faith  already  become  present.  They  ascend  with  the  confidence 
of  faith  into  the  holiest  of  holies  in  heaven,  which  Christ  has  rendered 
accessible  to  them  $■  x.  22.  They  already  belong  to  the  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem, and  are  become  the  associates  of  angels  ;  xii.  23.  They  have 
already  been  made  partakers  of  an  eternal,  unchangeable  kingdom  ;  xii. 
28.  They  have  already  felt  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come.  Hence  it 
follows,  that,  as  they  no  more  belong  in  their  inward  life  to  this  trans- 
itory world,  but  to  the  higher  future  world,  they  are  actually  raised 
entirely  above  the  conceptions  of  Judaism.  When  in  ix.  9,  it  is  said, 
that,  in  the  "  time  then  present,"  Kaipbg  evearrfKibg  (equivalent  to  "  this 
world,"  alihv  ovtoc),  there  is  a  sacrificial  worship,  which  yet,  like  all  such 
outward  things,  cannot  bestow*  the  right  constitution  of  the  inner  life, 
the  purification  from  guilt,  which  man  requires  in  order  to  become  a 
member  of  God's  kingdom,  it  must  be  recollected  that  Christians  do 
not  belong  to  "this  world,"  alcov  ovrog,  but  to  the  "world  to  come," 
aldv  jueAAwv,  and  hence  all  this  is  nothing  to  them.  When  the  author 
speaks  of  outward  ordinances,!  ix.  10,  which  were  "imposed  until  the 
time  of  reformation,"  it  is  added,  that  the  "  reformation,"  diopduoig, 
emanates  from  Christ,^  and  has  been  entered  upon  through  Him  who 
has  freed  us  from  the  yoke  of  these  old  ordinances,  though  in  its  whole 
extent  it  will  first  take  effect  in  the  "  world  to  come,"  oUovnevn  jxeXXovaa. 
In  fact,  he  contrasts  with  the  Jews  who  serve  an  earthly  sanctuary  (xiii. 
10)  the  Christians  to  whom  the  altar  in  heaven  stands  open,  while  it  is 
closed  against  the  Jews  who  cleave  to  an  earthly  sanctuary.  This  is  the 
contrast  between  those  whose  worship  still  adheres  to  the  veil  of  out- 
ward, sensible  forms,  and  those  who  rise  at  once  to  heaven.  As  Jesus 
suffered  without  the  gates  of  Jerusalem,  so,  according  to  the  symbolical 
representations  employed  in  this  epistle,  must  those  who  desire  to  belong 
to  him  withdraw  themselves  from  the  terrestrial  Jerusalem,  the  earthly 
sanctuary,  as  from  this  world  in  general;  xiii.  13.  We  here  find  the 
same  principles  as  in  Paul's  writings.  The  author  of  this  epistle  does  not, 
indeed,  argue  directly  against  the  maintenance  of  the  outward  forms  of 
the  Jewish  cultus,  nor  does  he  demand  their  abolition  ;  but  this  even 
Paul  would  not  have  done  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  Christians  who 
belonged  to  Judaism  by  national  descent  and  education. 

*  Paul  would  have  said  that  all  this  could  contribute  nothing  to  their  justification. 
f  The  same  which  Paul  asserts  of  the  oapniKa  rov  vofiov,  of  the  being  in  subjection  to 
the  oroixela  rov  koo/jlov.     See  p.  430,  note. 
\  As  the  contrast  in  ver.  1 1  shows. 


492  THE   DOCTRINE   OF 

It  may  appear  as  rather  un-Pauline  that  he  treats  only  of  the  salvation 
of  those  who  belonged  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  and  of  Christ's  rela- 
tion to  such.  We  may  indeed  doubt,  whether  Paul,  if  he  had  been  writ* 
ing  to  a  church  composed  entirely  of  Jewish  Christians,  could  have  so  far 
restrained  himself,  as  not  to  have  dropped  some  expressions  on  a  subject 
which  so  deeply  interested  him  as  the  divine  purpose  to  incorporate  the 
Gentiles  with  the  Jews  in  the  kingdom  of  God  by  faith  in  the  Redeemer  ; 
and  whether  he  would  not  have  felt  compelled  to  have  adverted,  at  least 
in  an  apologetic  manner,  to  his  peculiar  vocation  as  a  preacher  of  the 
gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  a  writer  who  so  ex- 
pressed himself  respecting  the  conditions  of  admission  into  the  Messianic 
kingdom  and  on  the  relation  of  Judaism  to  the  work  of  Christ,  as  we  find 
to  be  the  case  in  this  epistle,  must  have  agreed  with  the  Pauline  doctrine 
in  thinking,  that  as  the  attainment  of  eternal  salvation  was  independent 
of  Judaism  and  determined  alone  by  faith  in  Christ,  therefore  by  the  ful- 
filment of  this  one  condition  it  was  attainable  by  all  men.  We  also  find 
that  he  selects  as  a  type  of  Christ,  not  one  of  the  family  of  Abraham,  but 
Melchisedec — an  indication  of  Messianic  universalism.  If  we  call  to  mind 
that  he  considers  the  "  people,"  Xabg,  as  a  representative  of  the  theocratic 
people  in  general,  the  posterity  of  Abraham  as  representatives  of  those  of 
the  human  family  in  general  who  are  destined  for  the  kingdom  of  God, 
we  shall  not  be  able  to  detect  any  contradiction  between  himself  and 
Paul. 

With  respect  to  the  work  of  Christ,  the  author  of  this  epistle  appears 
to  differ  from  Paul, in  not  bringing  forward  the  resurrection  as  a  seal  of 
the  redemption  effected  by  the  Saviour  in  the  same  way  as  that  apostle. 
But  it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive,  that  the  same  conception  of  the  resur- 
rection in  relation  to  the  whole  of  the  Christian  system  lies  at  the  basis 
of  this  epistle.  Thei-e  is  the  same  connexion  between  sin  and  death  pre- 
supposed, as,  for  instance,  when  it  is  said  in  ii.  14,  that  Satan  had  the 
power  over  death,  that  is,  that  death  was  not  an  original  element  in  the 
creation,  but  was  first  occasioned  by  Satan,  by  means  of  sin  which  is  the 
work  of  Satan,  and  being  thus  connected  with  sin,  belongs  to  Satan's 
kingdom.  In  the  same  sense  as  Paul  intends,  sin  is  also  considered  as 
the  sting  of  death ;  for  it  is  said  that  men  oppressed  by  a  consciousness 
of  guilt  are  kept  in  continual  bondage  through  the  fear  of  death, — that 
fear  of  death,  which  presents  itself  in  connexion  with  the  divine  judgment 
to  the  agonizing  conscience  as  something  so  terrible,  and  which  blasts 
the  cheerful  enjoyment  of  life.  When  it  is  affirmed  that  Christ  through 
death  destroyed  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  who  had  power  over  death,  and 
thereby  freed  men  from  the  bondage  in  which  they  were  held  by  the  fear 
of  death, — it  is  presupposed  that,  by  the  power  of  his  holy  life,  he  left  the 
grave  victoriously  at  his  resurrection,  and  by  this  event  gave  a  pledge  to 
his  redeemed  of  freedom  from  death  and  sin,  of  a  life  of  eternal  happiness. 
It  is  said  in  v.  7,  that  Christ,  who,  as  he  had  assumed  human  nature  with 
all  its  weakness,  sin  excepted,  wTas  subjected  to  death,  poured  forth  in 


THE    EPISTLU   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  493 

his  struggle  with  death  fervent  prayers  and  tears  to  God  who  could 
redeem  from  death,  and  on  account  of  his  perfect  resignation  to  the  will 
of  his  heavenly  Father,  and  his  perfect  obedience,  was  heard,  that  is,  was 
delivered  from  death  by  means  of  his  resurrection.  The  God  of  salva- 
tion is  described  in  xiii.  20,  as  he  who  had  brought  from  the  dead  the 
great  Leader  and  Ruler  of  the  church  of  God  ;  and  in  these  words  it  is 
implied,  that  Christ  by  his  resurrection  became  the  leader  from  death  to 
life  of  the  church  of  God  formed  by  him  as  the  Redeemer,  and  laid  the 
foundation  for  its  salvation  ;  and  therefore  God,  in  raising  him  from  the 
dead,  proved  himself  to  be  the  God  of  salvation. 

We  see,  then,  that  the  same  view  is  taken  in  this  epistle  as  in  Paul's 
writings,  of  the  connexion  of  the  resurrection  with  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion. But  that  the  exaltation  of  Christ  to  heaven  is  more  frequently 
adverted  to  than  his  antecedent  resurrection,  may  be  traced  to  the  pre- 
vailing form  of  the  author's  representations,  in  which  Christ  is  compared 
to  the  high-priest  of  the  Old  Testament  economy ;  for  as  high-priest, 
having  ascended  to  heaven  and  remaining  there,  he  fulfils  his  office  by 
interceding  with  God  for  believers,  and  bringing  them  into  perpetual 
communion  with  God  and  heaven.  A  contrast  is  pointed  out  between 
Christ  and  the  Jewish  high-priest  in  this  respect,  that  the  latter  could 
enter  into  the  holy  of  holies  in  the  temple,  which  was  only  a  symbol  of 
that  in  heaven,  but  once  a  year,  and  was  obliged  to  leave  it  again,  as  he 
himself  had  no  abiding  residence  in  the  most  holy  place,  much  less  could 
he  obtain  an  entrance  into  it  for  those  on  whose  account  he  held  the 
priestly  office.  It  was  a  necessary  consequence  of  this  mode  of  repre- 
sentation, that  there  was  less  occasion  for  mentioning  the  resurrection, 
and  that  topic  was  brought  forward  more  prominently  to  which  the 
resurrection  forms  an  introduction  and  transition. 

But  this  idea  of  the  high-priesthood  of  Christ  is  only  a  particular  form 
of  representing  the  general  Christian  idea  of  Christ  as  the  Mediator,  by 
whom  the  communion  of  the  human  race  with  God,  broken  off  by  sin,  is 
again  restored.  That  the  writer  of  this  epistle  made  use  of  this  form, 
was  principally  owing  no  doubt  to  the  peculiar  character  of  the  churches 
whom  he  addressed  ;  but  in  parff  probably  to  the  peculiarity  of  his  own 
religious  training.  This  form  is  indeed  borrowed  from  Judaism.  Yet 
it  by  no  means  denotes  a  transient  relation  in  the  historical  development 
of  Christianity,  but  is  connected  with  one  of  its  constant  relations  to  hu- 
man nature  ;  a  relation  in  virtue  of  which,  under  the  consciousness  of  his 
earthly  limitations  and  his  sins,  man  feels  himself  in  need  of  a  mediation 
to  fill  up  the  infinite  chasm  that  separates  him  from  a  holy  God.  Hence 
in  all  religions,  and  in  the  most  diverse  forms  of  civilization,  methods 
have  been  invented  for  satisfying  this  want ;  a  caste  of  priests,  or  saints 
who  have  attained  perfection  by  an  unworldly  asceticism,  or  some  kind 
of  mediators  the  offspring  of  the  imagination,  and  a  multitude  of  sensible 
objects,  have  been  made  use  of,  as  points  of  connexion  for  the  religious 
sentiment  in  its  aspirations  after  God.     Christ  has  for  ever  satisfied  this 


494  THE   DOCTRINE    OP 

undeniable  want  of  human  nature,  which  no  human  being  who  himself 
stood  in  need  of  redemption  and  mediation  could  satisfy,  and  conse- 
quently all  priesthood  and  sacrificial  worship  are  henceforth  superfluous 
and  abolished.  The  redeemed  are  dependent  on  no  other  being  for  the 
purpose  of  mediating  their  relation  to  God.  Through  him  they  are 
Drought  into  a  lasting  connexion  with  God  and  the  heavenly  holy  of 
holies  ;  through  him,  as  the  ever-living  high-priest,  they  continually  draw 
nigh  to  God  :  it  is  he  who  intercedes  for  them  continually  with  God,  and 
through  their  relation  to  him  their  whole  life  is  consecrated  to  God  and 
acceptable  to  him,  vii.  25,  26.  Now  this  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  what 
Paul  teaches  (according  to  the  explanation  we  have  given  of  his  views) 
respecting  the  scheme  of  mediation  for  believers ;  respecting  the  whole 
Christian  life  as  a  thank-offering  for  the  blessings  of  redemption,  and  the 
free  access  to  God  through  the  mediation  of  Christ ;  and  from  the  man 
ner  in  which  he  applies  to  Christianity  the  Jewish  ideas  of  the  temple 
and  the  sacrifices  and  the  whole  ceremonial  worship,  we  are  authorized 
to  infer,  that  he  would  make  a  similar  application  of  the  idea  of  the 
priesthood. 

In  order  to  realize  this  idea  for  the  benefit  of  the  human  race,  it  was 
needful  that  Christ,  who,  according  to  his  divine  nature  as  Logos,  effec- 
tuates the  derivation  of  all  created  existence  from  God  and  its  connexion 
with  God,  should  from  his  own  experience,  become  acquainted  with  all 
the  weaknesses,  sufferings,  temptations,  and  conflicts  of  those  for  whom  he 
had  to  intercede  as  high-priest,  that  he  might  understand  the  exigencies 
in  which  they  would  require  his  aid,  feel  genuine  sympathy  with  their 
infirmities,  and  infuse  true  confidence  into  their  hearts.  At  the  same 
time,  the  writer  of  this  epistle  considers  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  the 
twofold  point  of  view,  of  active  and  passive  satisfaction,  which  we  have 
explained  in  the  representation  of  the  Pauline  doctrine.  Both  are  here 
combined  in  the  idea  of  the  all-sufficient  sacrifices  presented  by  Christ  as 
high-priest,  which  effects  that  for  which  no  religion  of  sacrifices  was  ade- 
quate. The  relation  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  as  the  Sinless  One  to  the 
sins  of  mankind  is  thus  illustrated:  that  as  the  sins  of  the  people  were 
symbolically  transferred  to  the  victim*  (as  if  it  could  suffer  what  the 
people  deserved,)  so  Christ  in  his  sacrifice  had  taken  upon  himself  the 
sins  Of  mankind  ;  his  redeeming  sufferings  were  the  pledge  that  the  guilt 
of  sin  no  longer  rested  on  them  ;  ix.  28.  As  to  the  other  part  of  Christ's 
work  noticed  by  Paul, — his  active  obedience, — it  is  in  this  epistle  ex- 
pressly stated  that  Christ,  according  to  the  divine  appointment,  having 
proved  himself  to  be  the  Holy  One  in  all  human  temptations,  and  under 
the  severest  death-struggle,  gained  thereby  the  dignity  of  high-priest ; 
v.  7,  8.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  obtains  its  due  significance  only  in  this 
moral  connexion,  not  as  an  opus  operatum,  like  the  sacrifice  of  animals, 
but  as  the  act  of  One  who,  revealing  the  eternal  Divine  Essence  in  human 
nature,  and  exhibiting  the  perfect  union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  a 
holy  human  life,  verified  it  also  in  death,  as  the  confirmation  of  a  life 


THU   EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS.  495 

which  had  been  the  revelation  of  the  eternal  Spirit  of  God  in  a  sin- 
less, holy  humanity.  The  significance  of  the  death  of  Chvist  is  founded 
on  his  having,  "  by  an  eternal  Spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot  to 
God."  Thus  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  distinguishes,  as  we  find  in 
Paul,  two  eras  in  the  life  of  Christ;  his  appearance  on  earth,  when 
he  entered  into  fellowship  with  mankind,  to  bear  the  load  of  sin  and  to 
free  them  from  it ;  and  his  life  as  the  Glorified  One,  which  no  longer 
stands  in  relation  to  sin,  but  in  which  he  only  exhibits  what  he  obtained 
by  his  perfect,  holy  life,  and  what  those  have  to  expect  who  are  freed 
by  him  from  sin  and  called  to  the  perfect  communion  of  his  blessed 
life  ;  ix.  28. 

By  what  Christ  has  in  this  manner  accomplished,  he  has  now  once 
for  all  made  objective  satisfaction  for  mankind  to  the  requirements  of 
the  holiness  of  God,  of  the  moral  order  of  the  universe.  Mankind  de- 
filed by  sin  cannot  enter  into  the  heavenly  sanctuary.  They  must  first 
be  purified  and  consecrated  in  order  to  enter  into  the  fellowship  of 
heaven.*  This  work,  accomplished  objectively  by  Christ,  is  now  carried 
on  in  its  consequences,  till  everything  is  conquered  which  opposes  the 
realization  of  the  holy  kingdom  of  God  among  mankind,  till  that  higher 
world,  first  apprehended  by  faith,  becomes  an  actual  reality  to  the  sanc- 
tified human  race. 

Faith  is  also  represented  in  this  epistle  as  that  by  which  this  objective 
work  is  appropriated  by  individuals,  and  that  by  which  this  subjective 
purification  is  accomplished  ;  that  by  which  men  enter  into  communion 
with  Christ ;  iii.  6,  14.  It  is  the  confidence  of  faith  which  enables  men 
to  appropriate  purification  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  purges  the  heart 
from  the  consciousness  of  guilt;  x.  22.  We  here  find  the  same  thing 
which  Paul  describes  as  justification  by  faith,  only  with  an  allusion  to 
sprinkling  with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices,  in  accordance  with  that  refer- 
ence to  the  Jewish  cultus  which  pervades  the  epistle.  As  in  Paul's 
writings,  so  it  is  here  insisted  that  faith  must  prove  itself  genuine  by  per 
severance  ;  x.  36,  iii.  14.  And  we  find  also  the  same  connexion  indicated 
between  Faith,  Hope,  and  Love ;  x.  23,  24. 

In  Paul's  writings,  there  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  particular  Christian 
application  of  the  idea  of  faith,  a  more  general  conception  of  it  as  a  gen 
eral,  fundamental  direction  of  the  disposition  without  which  no  commu 
nion  with  the  divine,  no  religious  life,  can  exist;  and  this  idea  is  ex- 
pressed in  this  epistle  in  a  still  more  general  way  than  when  Paul  points 
to  justifying  faith  in  the  case  of  Abraham.  It  is  described  as  being  an 
apprehension  of  the  invisible  by  the  whole  direction  of  the  disposition,— 
a  surrender  of  the  spirit  to  something  invisible  by  an  act  of  inward  self- 
determination,  by  which  man  raises  himself  above  the  natural  connexion 

*  By  a  transference  of  the  subjective  to  the  objective,  the  writer  of  this  epistle  (ix.  23) 
speaks  of  a  purification  of  the  heavenly  sanctuary  itself,  inasmuch  as  it  would  have  been 
defiled  by  the  sins  of  mankind  could  they  have  entered  it  without  a  previous- purification 


496  THE   DOCTRINE   OF 

of  causes  and  effects,  and  enters,  by  the  direction  of  his  inward  life  into 
a  higher  order  of  things  that  reveals  itself  to  him.  Faith,  accord- 
,  ing  to  Heb.  xi.  1,  is  that  by  which  the  object  of  hope  already  becomes 
present ;  by  which  man  is  convinced  of  the  reality  of  what  he  cannot 
perceive  by  the  senses.*  While  in  the  constant  succession  in  the  phe- 
nomenal world  he  sees  only  the  visible  develop  itself  from  the  visible,  and 
one  phenomenon  from  another,  and  the  understanding,  cleaving  to  earthly 
phenomena,  would  explain  and  understand  everything  from  this  causal 
connexion  ;  faith,  on  the  contrary,  rises  to  an  act  of  creative  omnipotence 
as  the  original  ground  of  all  existence,  and  acknowledges  that  the  uni- 
verse was  made  by  the  invisible  creative  word  of  God;  xi.  3.  Even 
here,  agreeably  to  what  we  have  remarked  above,  there  is  involved  a  pe- 
culiar Christian  application  of  the  general  idea  of  faith,  only  what  Paul 
distinguishes  as  justification  through  faith,  is  here  represented  under 
other  forms  on  account  of  the  references  to  the  Jewish  cultus.  More- 
over, in  accordance  with  the  peculiarly  hortatory  character  of  this  epistle, 
faith  is  exhibited  in  its  aspect  of  perseverance  under  all  the  sufferings 
and  conflicts  of  earthly  life ; — faith  in  its  unflinching  constancy  towards 
the  future,  a  faith  which  steadily  aims  at  consummation,  and  by  which 
those  who  exercise  it  are  matured  for  that  final  aim  ;  (reXei^aig).  By 
this  faith  a  man  follows  after  Christ,  in  whom  a  perfect  pattern  is  ex- 
hibited, and  who  has  passed  through  all  temptations  and  conflicts,  with 
an  unwavering  constancy  of  faith,  to  that  state  of  glory  whither  all  be- 
lievers must  follow  him  by  the  same  path ;  xii.  2.  But  it  has  been  most 
unjustly  attempted  to  find  a  contrariety  between  the  idea  of  faith  in  this 
epistle  and  in  Paul's  writings,  as  if  in  the  former  it  merely  implied  a 
reference  to  something  future,  a  conception  of  its  nature  which  would 
best  suit  a  lifeless  Judaism.  It  is  evident  from  the  general,  fundamental 
idea  of  faith  as  we  have  explained  it,  and  from  the  whole  train  of  thought 
in  this  epistle,  that  by  means  of  faith  a  vital  connexion  is  formed  between 
the  Present  and  the  Future.  By  means  of  faith,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  this  epistle,  the  Future  becomes  in  some  measure  a  Present  to 
the  mind,  although  this  Present  has  a  necessary  bearing  to  a  more  per- 
fect development,  a  consummation  in  the  Future.  In  connexion  with 
faith  is  given  the  experience  of  the  glory  of  the  divine  word,  vi.  5  ;  by 
faith  Christians  are  already  united  with  the  future  world,  and  incor- 
porated into  the  heavenly  city  of  God,  xii.  22.  By.  faith  they  partake  of 
the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,  and  obtain  a  partial  anticipation  of  the 
Future  ;  faith  penetrates  through  the  veil  which  conceals  from  human 
eyes  the  holy  of  holies  in  the  heavens,  and  already  enters  it;  vi.  19. 

With  respect  to  the  relation  between  the  ideas  of  this  epistle  and  the 
ideas  of  the  Alexandrian-Jewish  theology  as  they  are  represented  in  the 
writings  of  Philo,  we  must  here  have  recourse  to  one  of  the  deepest- 

*  As  Theodoret  says,  SeUvvoiv  wj-  vfyeaTwra  to.  fiTjdeTru  yeyevrtfieva,  (it  shews  as 
present,  things  which  have  never  taken  place.) 


THE   EPISTLE  TO   THE   HEBREWS.  497 

reaching  distinctions,  the  distinction  between  religious  realism  and  reli- 
gious idealism ;  in  other  words,  to  that  theory  which  considers  the 
positive  and  historical  in  religion  only  as  a  symbolical  clothing  of  general 
ideas,  and  as  the  means  of  stimulating  and  training  the  mind  towards  the 
contemplation  of  ideas — and  to  that  theory,  according  to  which  religion 
is  acknowledged,  not  as  an  object  merely  of  the  intellect,  but  as  an  inde- 
pendent power  in  the  life,  a  living  communion  with  God  effected  by 
means  of  certain  historical  facts,  as  the  highest  end  of  a  created  being,  and 
a  complete  satisfaction  of  his  religious  wants. 

On  this  entire  distinction  of  religious  theories,  a  difference  is  founded 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  Judaism.  Philo  viewed 
the  historical  and  the  positive  in  Judaism  only  as  symbolical  veils  of 
general  ideas,  which  for  the  most  part  were  borrowed  from  a  very 
different  system,  and  which  he  attributed  to  Judaism  by  an  arbitrary  dis- 
regard of  historical  accuracy.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
conceives  of  Judaism,  according  to  its  true  historical  destination  and  in- 
tention— to  prepare  the  way  for  realizing  the  kingdom  of  God  through 
Christ — to  prefigure  the  divine  in  seusible  forms — which  would  after- 
wards actually  appear  among  mankind.  If  he  arbitrarily  explains  some 
things  according  to  the  letter,  yet  a  higher  necessity  lies  at  the  basis  of 
these  meanings,  the  reference  to  the  facts  of  religion  from  which  the 
satisfaction  of  the  religious  wants  of  mankind  proceeded,  and  which  were 
really  prepared  by  Judaism.  The  predominant  idea  of  the  epistle,  the 
high-priesthood  of  Christ,  has  a  significance  entirely  real,  founded  on 
historical  facts,  and  relating  to  the  most  pressing  religious  wants  of  man- 
kind. The  Logos  in  himself  is  not  the  high-priest ;  he  can  only  lay  claim 
to  this  character  in  consequence  of  his  having  assumed  human  nature, 
and  thus  accomplished,  in  the  manner  described,  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind. Christ  as  glorified  and  exalted  to  heaven,  actually  performs  that 
for  the  religious  life  of  men  which  their  imperative  religious  wants  seeks 
in  the  priesthood.  On  the  contrary,  Philo  calls  the  Logos  himself  the 
high-priest,  as  the  divine  reason  revealed  in  creation,  through  which  the 
creation  is  connected  with  the  Deity.  This  reason,  which  reveals  the 
highest  Being,  the  ov,  and  communicates  worthy  and  elevated  ideas  of 
the  same,  is  hence  called  the  high-priest  of  God  in  the  creation.  As  the 
ideal  ground  of  the  phenomenal  world,  it  mediates  for  it  before  God,  for 
in  idea  all  is  perfect,  but  defective  in  actual  appearance.  The  Logos  is 
hence  represented  as  the  "  world  of  thought,"  icoo/iog  vorjTog,  the 
"paraclete,"  -napa.K\r\Toq,  the  "  suppliant,"  ker^for  the  "  world  of  the 
senses,"  Koa/iog  alod7]Tog.  This  idea  is  symbolically  represented  in 
Melchisedec,  and  in  the  Jewish  high-priest.*     Thus  we  see  here,  on  the 

*  See  Leg.  Allegor.  iii.  §  26,  where  Melchisedec  is  spoken  of  as  the  symbol  of  the 
Logos,  Uptvs  yap  kari.  /loyof,  K?J/pov  exuv  T^>v  ovra  /cat  in/;eAt5f  nepl  avrov  Xoyi&pevoc 
(for  reason  is  a  priest,  having  as  an  inheritance  the  true  Being,  and  discoursing  in  an 
exalted   manner  concerning:  Him.)    De  Cherubim,  §  5,   the  Logos  is  termed   "  priest," 


498  THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JAMES. 

one  hand,  abstract  general  ideas  which  can  have  no  significance  for  the 
religious  life  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  views  taken  from  the  facts  of 
religious  experience.  On  the  one  hand,  the  language  of  religion  is  arbi- 
trarily explained,  according  to  a  speculation  which  was  the  production  of 
a  foreign  soil ;  on  the  other  hand,  according  to  sentiments  founded  in  the 
disposition  which  it  was  designed  and  adapted  to  express.  Here  it  is 
proper  to  notice  a  passage,  in  which  the  author  of  this  epistle  descrihes 
the  power  of  the  Logos  in  a  manner  resembling  Philo's,  but  which  fur- 
nishes no  sufficient  evidence  to  assume  that  he  had  the  language  of  Philo 
actually  in  his  thoughts.  That  which  is  common*  to  them  is  the  all- 
penetrating  and  cutting  sharpness  of  the  Logos.  But,  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  we  have  presented  to  us  a  matter  of  religious  experience, 
the  living  power  of  divine  truth,  penetrating,  judging,  and  punishing  the 
soul,  the  power  which  lays  open  all  secret  wickedness,  before  which  no 
deception  can  stand.  But  Philo  understands  by  the  term  the  power  of 
logical  discrimination,  especially  in  reference  to  the  divine  reason,  that 
efficiency  by  which  it  fixes  the  limits  of  the  various  kinds  of  existence, 
arranges  the  various  classes  of  creatures,  and  forms  compound  bodies 
from  the  simple  elements. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   JAMES. 


We  proceed  from  Paul's  representation  of  Christian  truth  to  that 
of  James,  which  comes  nearer  to  furnishing  a  contrast  to  it  than  any 

leptic,  and  "  prophet,"  npo^r/rric,  for  the  soul.  De  Sacrif.  Abel  el  Caini,  §  36,  6  ne^evydc 
en),  rbv  debv  Kal  Ikettjc  avrov  yeyov&s  Xoyoc,  (reason  which  fled  to  God,  and  became  a 
suppliant  of  him.)  The  high-priest  in  his  robes  is  a  symbol  of  the  universe,  dvayKalov  yap 

f/V  TOV  UpUfJLEVOV    Tip     TOV    KOOflOV    TZaTpl    TTOpaKX^TG)  XPV^al    TefelOTaTG)    T7JV    dpeTTjV    VM, 

(for  it  was  necessary  that  he,  consecrated  to  the  Father  of  the  world,  should  have  for  a 
paraclete  a  son  most  perfect  in  virtue), — the  world  according  to  the  Platonic  idea.  Be 
Vita  Mos.  iiL  §  14. 

*  Compare  Hebrews  iv.  12,  with  Quis  Rer.  divinar.  Hares,  §  26:  Iva  rbv  ddlSanTov 
Ivvotjc  debv  TEfivovra,  Tag  re  ruv  aufidruv  Kal  npay/xdruv  e^f  dndaaq  rjpftocdai  Kal  rjvua- 
6ai  doKovoag  (bvoeic,  r£>  ro/iel  tuv  avfindvruv  avrov  XSycp,  of  rig  ri/v  o^vrdrrjv  uKovrjdels 
aKfj.ijv,  diaipuv  ovSenore  ~kr\yu  rd  aladrjrtL  ndvra,  trreiddv  dk~  fisxP1  T^v  ufSfiuv  Kal  /.eyo/ie- 
vuv  d/tepuv  dictjeTi-dri,  nd2.iv  dnb  rovruv  rd  Xoyu  deuprjru  elg  dfivdrjrovc  Kal  dnepiyputyovg 
(mlpac  upxerac  dtaipslv  ovrog  6  rofievg.  (In  order  that  you  may  understand  the  untaught 
God  who,  dividing  all  the  natures  of  bodies  and  things  that  seem  to  be  consecutively 
fitted  and  united  together,  cuts  through  everything  by  his  word,  which,  sharpened  to  the 
keenest  edge,  never  ceases  separating  every  object  of  the  senses ;  and  after  it  has  passed 
through  to  the  atoms  and  the  so-called  indivisible,  this  divider  begins  again  to  separate 
from  these  those  things  contemplated  by  the  reason  into  unspeakable  and  indescribable 
parts.)    Fhilon.  Opera,  torn  iii.  p.  30,  ed.  Lips.  1828. 


THE    DOCRINE    OF   JAMES.  499 

other  in  the  New  Testament.  This  is  chiefly  owing  to  James's  peculiar 
point  of  view,  and  to  the  difference  occasioned  by  it  in  the  development 
of  the  doctrines  of  justification  and  faith.  But  on  comparing  the  two 
types  of  doctrine  with  one  another,  we  shall  perceive  the  essential  unity 
resulting  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  both,  only  that  the  views  of  the 
latter  apostle  were  not  so  completely  disengaged  from  the  garb  of  the 
Old  Dispensation,  nor  wrought  out  in  the  same  sharply  defined  form. 
The  contrast  that  here  exists  we  cannot  but  regard  rather  as  formal  than 
material. 

This  difference  is  closely  connected  with  the  difference  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  religious  character  of  the  two  apostles,  and  with  the  differ- 
ence in  their  respective  spheres  of  labor.  As  to  the  latter,  we  must  bear 
in  mind,  that  James  in  his  peculiar  position  had  not,  like  Paul,  to  vindi- 
cate an  independent  and  unshackled  ministration  of  the  gospel  among 
the  Gentiles  in  opposition  to  the  pretensions  of  Jewish  legal  righteous- 
ness ;  but  that  he  felt  himself  compelled  to  press  the  practical  conse- 
quences and  requirements  of  the  Christian  faith  on  those  in  whom  that 
faith  had  been  blended  with  the  errors  of  carnal  Jadaism,  and  to  tear 
away  the  supports  of  their  false  confidence.  While  Paul  was  obliged  to 
point  out,  to  those  who  placed  their  dependence  on  the  justifying  power 
of  the  works  of  the  law,  the  futility  of  such  works  in  reference  to  justifica- 
tion, and  to  demonstrate  that  justification  and  sanctification  could  pro- 
ceed only  from  the  faith  of  the  gospel, — James,  on  the  other  hand,  found 
it  necessary  to  declare  to  those  who  imagined  that  they  could  be  justified 
before  God  by  a  faith  in  the  Jewish  sense  as  we  have  before  explained 
it,  that  such  a  faith  with  which  their  practice  was  at  total  variance,  was 
an  absolutely  worthless  thing.* 

The  apostle  affirms,  that  as  a  sympathy  that  shows  itself  in  mere 
words  to  the  afflicted  is  worth  nothing,  so  a  faith  without  works  is  en- 
tirely vain.     Accordingly,  he  compares  a  faith  that  does  not  manifest 

*  It  serves  to  confirm  what  we  have  asserted  above,  viz.,  that  the  argumentation  in 
the  Epistle  of  James  is  by  no  means  directed  against  Paul,  that  the  example  of  Rahab 
adduced  in  it,  cannot  be  supposed  to  relate  to  any  use  which  Paul  could  have  made  of  it ; 
for  the  manner  in  which  the  doctrine  of  Faith  is  unfolded  in  the  11th  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ilebrews,  could  certainly  give  no  occasion  to  such  a  line  of  argument, 
since  in  that  section,  believing  confidence  is  described  precisely  as  a  principle  which 
impels  to  action,  and  the  faith  of  Rahab  is  marked  as  being  of  a  kind  that  induced  her  to 
receive  the  spies.  The  very  point  is  here  made  prominent  on  which  James  lays  so  much 
stress,  and  hence  we  infer  that  it  cannot  form  an  antithesis  to  his  own  views.  Nor  could 
Paul,  in  his  oral  instructions,  have  made  use  of  the  example  of  Rahab  ;  for  in  those  pas- 
sages of  the  book  of  Joshua  there  was  nothing  ho  could  make  use  of  in  support  of  his 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  Nothing  is  to  be  found  there  respecting  faith,  nor  of  a 
being  justified  before  God,  and  with  those  points  alone  St.  Paul  was  concerned,  and  fof 
their  confirmation  he  quoted  Gen.  xv.  and  Habakkuk  ii.  This  example  of  Rahab,  which 
can  only  be  explained  from  the  reference  to  Paul's  doctrine,  testifies  against  the  supposed 
discrepancy  in  the  views  of  the  two  Apostles.  The  citation  of  such  an  example  can  be 
explained  and  justified,  only  from  the  point  of  view  which  wj  have  taken. 


500  ON   FAITH    AND   WORKS. 

itself  by  works,  to  a  pretended  love  that  is  not  verified  by  corresponding 
acts,  to  a  sympathy  that  evaporates  in  mere  words.  From  this  compar 
ison,  it  is  evident  that  what  he  here  describes  as  a  pretended  love  is  in 
his  judgment  undeserving  of  the  name  of  love;  the  same  may  be  said  of 
a  pretended  faith.  But  as  by  arguing  against  the  value  of  a  love  that 
only  shows  itself  in  words,  he  did  not  intend  to  depreciate  the  worth  of 
love  itself,  just  as  little  could  he  design  to  cast  a  slight  on  the  worth  of 
faith  by  what  he  says  against  the  value  of  a  faith  that  exhibits  itself  only 
in  outward  profession.  He  considers  such  a  faith,  which  is  unaccom 
panied  by  works,  as  dead  ;  it  is  a  faith  which  is  destitute  of  that  divine 
fife  which  spontaneously  produces  good  works.  In  reference  to  this 
necessary,  intimate  connexion  between  faith  and  works,  James,  from  his 
point  of  view,  permits  one  to  say,  addressing  another  who  depends  on 
this  inoperative  faith  (ii.  18),  "Show  me  how  thy  faith  can  exist  without 
works,  and  I  will  prove  to  thee  my  faith  by  my  works.''  "  As  the  body 
without  the  soul  is  dead,  so"  (he  says,  ii.  26)  "faith  without  works  is 
dead."  The  comparison  is  here  a  general  one,  without  descending  to 
particulars.  It  is  evident,  that  James  could  not  mean  to  say  that  works 
(the  outward  act)  bear  the  same  relation  to  faith  as  the  soul  to  the  body, 
but  only  (which  agrees  with  the  whole  train  of  his  thinking)  that  the 
absence  of  works  is  a  proof  that  the  faith  is  destitute  of  what  corresponds 
to  the  soul  as  the  animating  principle  of  the  body.  Works,  therefore, 
are  signs  of  the  vitality  of  faith. 

We  shall  be  assisted  in  forming  correct  ideas  of  his  doctrine  respecting 
faith,  if  we  examine  the  examples  which  he  adduces  of  genuine  and  of 
spurious  faith  ;  on  the  one  hand,  the  faith  of  evil  spirits  in  a  God,  which 
only  fills  them  with  terror,  and,  on  the  other,  the  faith  of  Abraham.  He 
here  applies  the  same  term  faith  to  two  distinct  affections  of  the  soul.  In 
the  first  case,  where  the  reference  is  to  the  faith  of  evil  spirits,  the  feeling 
of  dependence  on  an  Almighty  Supreme  Being  shows  itself  as  something 
unavoidable,  as  an  overpowering  force,  but  it  is  only  a  passive  state  (a 
■nddoq),  with  which  the  spontaneity,  the  free  receptivity  and  self-activity 
of  the  mind  by  no  means  corresponds,  to  which  the  whole  determination 
of  the  inward  life  is  opposed.  The  feeling  of  dependence  on  God  is 
something  which  man  cannot  get  rid  of,  however  much  he  may  desire  it. 
In  the  second  case,  faith  is  not  merely  something  passive,  existing  inde- 
pendently of  the  self-determination  of  man,  but  a  voluntary  recognition 
of  this  dependence  takes  place  by  an  act  of  the  will,  and  thereby  becomes 
a  regulating  principle  of  the  whole  life.  Hence,  in  the  former  instance, 
wrorks,  as  well  as  the  whole  tendency  of  the  life,  must  stand  in  con- 
tradiction to  what  from  this  position  is  called  faith ;  in  the  latter,  the 
inward  tendency  of  the  life  proceeding  from  faith  necessarily  manifests 
itself  by  works.  That  work  of  Abraham  which  the  apostle  adduces,  was 
indeed  no  other  than  an  expression  of  that  unconditional  and  trustful 
surrender  to  the  Divine  will,  which  is  likewise  by  Paul  considered  as  a 
mark  of  Abraham's  genuine  and  divinely  approved  righteousness.     But 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   JAMES.  501 

Paul  adduces  this  example  with  a  special  reference  to  its  internal  impor- 
tance, in  opposition  to  a  vain  righteousness  of  works ;  James  makes  use 
of  it  in  its  outward  manifestation  against  an  opus  operation  of  faith  ;  and 
in  this  point  of  view  he  could  say  that  by  his  works  Abraham  proved 
that  he  was  righteous;  faith  cooperated  with  his  works  in  order  to 
characterize  him  as  genuinely  righteous  ;  by  works  his  faith  proved  itself 
to  be  "perfect,"  reXeia.  When  the  Holy  Scriptures  tell  us  that  Abra- 
ham's faith  was  imputed  to  him  by  God  for  righteousness,  this  can  only 
be  understood  of.  a  faith  which  was  accompanied  with  good  works  as 
marks  of  its  genuineness.  Certainly  James,  who  believed  in  the  Divine 
omniscience,  could  not  suppose  that  the  outward  act  was  requisite  to 
make  Abraham's  disposition  manifest  to  God ;  but  he  meant  to  say  that 
Abraham's  faith  could  not  have  justified  him  before  God,  if  it  had  not 
been  such  as  would  manifest  its  inward  quality  by  such  works.  But  Paul 
would  not  have  applied  the  same  term  martg  to  two  religious  states  that 
differed  so  widely  from  one  another ;  he  would  hardly  have  designated 
by  this  name  what  James  asserts  of  evil  spirits  ;  he  would  not  have  dis- 
tinguished between  a  fides  informis  and  a  fides  formata,  but  only  have 
designated  by  this  latter  term  the  "  faith  that  worketh  by  love."  And 
although  in  combating  the  erroneous  tendency  he  would  have  agreed 
with  James,  yet  his  method  of  combating  it  would  have  been  quite  dif- 
ferent. He  would  have  pointed  out,  as  he  has  done  in  several  passages 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  necessary,  intimate  connexion  between 
faith  and  a  moral  transformation ;  he  would  have  shown  those  persons 
who  professed  to  believe,  that  what  really  deserved  the  name  of  faith, 
was  entirely  wanting  to  them.  But  the  elements  of  such  a  demonstra- 
tion are  to  be  found  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  where  he  speaks  of  a  new 
birth,  a  new  creation  proceeding  from  faith;  i.  18.  Yet  it  is  not  his 
manner  to  develop  what  is  contained  in  the  idea  so  systematically  as  Paul 
is  wont  to  do,  who  exhibits  to  us,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  the  speculative 
and  the  practical,  as  they  interpenetrate  each  other.  James  is  through- 
out practical  rather  than  speculative.  He  contents  himself  with  stating 
experimental  appearances,  while  Paul  would  profoundly  investigate  their 
causes.  To  Paul,  the  central  fact  on  which  everything  turns  is  the  rela- 
tion of  man  to  God,  and  the  great  revolution  that  must  be  effected  in 
that  relation  in  order  that  man,  by  nature  estranged  from  God,  may  be- 
come an  object  of  his  good  pleasure.  Only  to  the  sight  of  that  God  who 
beholds  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  spirit,  and  to  whom  the  invisible 
world  lies  unveiled,  is  the  whole  new  direction  of  the  life  apparent  in  that 
internal  act  of  faith  which  lays  hold  of  redemption,  and  from  which  every- 
thing must  be  developed  that  belongs  to  the  perfection  of  the  Christian 
life.  In  the  sight  of  that  Being  who  beholds  the  invisible,  man  is  justi- 
fied when  he  believes  ;  he  is  justified  by  his  faith.  But  James,  who  con- 
templates the  outward  manifestation  of  things  as  they  are  developed  in 
time,  takes  into  account  the  cooperation  of  faith  and  works  for  the  jus- 
tification of  man  ;  for  like  Paul  he  recognises  only  that  faith  which  work** 


502  ON   FAITH    AND   WORKS. 

by  love  and  thus  originates  the  new  creation  in  man,  as  justifying  faith, 
and  requires  that  it  should  express  itself  in  works  in  order  to  distinguish 
rt  from  whatever  else  may  be  called  faith.  Had  James  intended  to  say 
that  works  must  be  visible  in  order  that  man  may  appear  just  before  God 
this  would  have  been  a  material  contradiction  between  himself  and  Paul 
But  as  surely  as  James  acknowledged  God  as  the  omniscient  who  pene- 
trates into  all  that  is  hidden  from  mortal  vision,  must  he  have  known,  that 
true  faith  and  the  right  state  of  heart  which  it  involved,  must  be  manifest 
to  God,  before  it  could  be  discernible  to  man  by  its  outward  signs.  But 
one  thing  is  certain  ; — the  point  of  view  taken  by  these  two  apostles,  the 
direction  of  their  contemplations,  is  thoroughly  different.  The  great  dif- 
ference in  their  respective  positions  is,  that  while  Paul  fixes  his  attention 
principally  on  the  objectively  Divine,  the  ground  of  God's  election,  on 
which  the  confidence  of  man  must  rest:  James,  assuming  the  fact  of  this 
divine  ground,  concerns  himself  with  the  subjectively  human,  with  what 
man  must  do  on  his  part. 

A  contradiction  may  indeed  seem  to  exist  between  the  two,  when  the 
one,  as  the  mark  of  the  position  of  legal  righteousness  adopts  the  phrase, 
"  Do  this,  and  thou  shalt  live !"  and  the  other,  from  his  position,  says, 
"  A  doer  of  the  work — this  man  shall  be  blessed  in  his  deed"*  :  and  we 
readily  grant  that  Paul  would  not  have  expressed  himself  as  James  has 
done.  But  this  contradiction  vanishes,  if  we  take  care  to  notice  the 
different  connexions  in  which  these  words  are  used.  Paul  speaks  of  the 
law  as  the  summary  of  individual,  imperative  prescriptions,  and  of  man 
as  under  the  law,  antecedent  to  Christianity.  James  is  speaking  of  the 
new  law  of  life  revealed  by  the  Messiah,  which  he  designates  as  the  "  per- 
fect law,"  v6[xog  Tekeiog,  in  reference  to  its  forming  the  consummation  of 
Judaism,  just  as  Christ  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount  represents  the  gospel 
to  be  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  Viewing  it  in  this  connexion,  he  also  calls 
it  the  "  law  of  liberty,"  i.,  25  doubtless  from  the  fact,  that  those  who 
truly  receive  it,  render  a  free,  loving  obedience,  issuing  from  an  inward 
vital  principle.  He  considers  this  law  as  equivalent  to  the  Ao'yoc,  the 
published  doctrine  of  Christ.  By  this  doctrine  the  law  becomes  a  law  of 
freedom,  and  a  perfect  law,  inasmuch  as  in  the  words  of  Christ  the  law 
first  finds  its  full  significance,  and  from  faith  in  Christ  the  free  obedience 
of  love  is  first  rendered  to  it.  Thus  the  Christian  state,  in  which  the  law 
becomes  glorified,  appears  as  that  of  freedom  and  perfection,  in  contrast  to 
the  earlier  condition  of  bondage  and  imperfection.  Since,  then,  James  thus 
agrees  with  Paul,  although  he  would  not  have  made  such  a  contrast  as 
the" latter  apostle,  between  the  gospel  and  the  law,  we  are  not  justified  in 
tracing  modes  of  expression  in  James  that  resemble  the  Pauline,  to  the 
direct  influence  of  Paul,  but,  we  must  rather  refer  what  both  have  in 

•  Paul,  from  the  legal  as  opposed  to  the  evangelical  stand-point,  says,  "  The  man  that 
doeth  them  shall  live  in  them,"  'O  noirjaac  avru  ^aerai  kv  avrotc.  James,  from  his  own 
position,  says,  'O  ttoi^t}^  ipyov  ovror  /laicupinc  kv  rij  iroti'iaet.  avruv  iarai,  "  the  doer  of 
the  work,  this  m;m  shall  be  blessed  m  his  deed." 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   JAMES. 


503 


common,  to  the  divine  original  fountain  of  the  revelation  of  Christ,  in 
whose  words  we  can  point  out  the  connecting  link.  In  reference  there- 
fore to  the  law,  as  the  law  of  Christ,  James  says  what  Paul  himself  must 
have  granted, — that  mere  knowledge  can  profit  nothing — that  it  is  all- 
important  that  this  doctrine  should  not  be  made  an  object  of  mere  indo- 
lent contemplation,  but  should  evince  its  power  as  a  law  regulating  the 
life—that  whoever  exemplifies  this  doctrine  in  his  life,  will  be  blessed  in 
his  deed*— that  only  he  who  regulates  his  life  .by  Christianity  can  expe- 
rience in  life  its  blessed  effects  ;  he  alone  will  feel  truly  blessed  in  the  in- 
fluence proceeding  from  Christianity. 

In  relation  to  moral  requirements,  James  differed  widely  from  the 
abettors  of  a  Jewish  legal  righteousness,  who  laid  more  stress  on  a  mul- 
tiplicity of  individual  good  works  than  on  the  regulation  of  the  life  by 
one  governing  principle  ;  for  it  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  this  Epistle, 
and  closely  connected  with  his  argument  on  faith,  that  he  traces  back 
belief,  knowledge,  and  action,  to  the  unity  of  the  whole  life  proceeding 
from  a  godly  disposition,  and  opposes  the  isolation  of  all  those  things 
which  can  only  maintain  their  true  significance  when  comprehended  in 
that  unity. 

Thus  he  says,  Whosoever  imagines  that  the  worship  of  God  consists 
in  certain  single  acts,  deceives  himself;  it  consists  in  the  whole  direction 
of  a  life  devoted  to  God,  in  preserving  oneself  from  contact  with  all  un- 
godliness. He  combats  the  superficial  moral  judgment,  according  to  which 
a  man  believes  that  he  may  be  excused  for  transgressing  certain  com- 
mands, if  he  only  avoids  certain  sins.  The  law  is  a  unity,  and  whoever 
violates  it  in  only  one  point,  is  guilty  of  violating  the  whole.  According 
to  James,  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  law  consists  in  love  ;  ii.  8.  Hence  he 
particularly  speaks  against  those  who  were  accustomed  to  consider  an 
offence  in  words  as  a  mere  trifle,  or  who  believed  that  they  could  exercise 
genuine  devotion  towards  God  while  they  were  in  the  habit  of  passing  un- 
charitable judgments  on  their  fellow-men.  This  is  a  contradiction ;  good 
and  evil  cannot  proceed  from  the  same  fountain ;  it  is  of  the  first  importance 
that  language  should  be  the  organ  of  a  disposition  that  regulates  the  whole 
life  botlTin  word  and  deed.  And  in  reference  to  the  theoretical  part  of 
religion,  he  says  that  true  wisdom  and  true  knowledge  must  show  them- 
selves in  the  general  course  of  the  life.  He  considers  the  whole  Christian 
life  as  a  work.  That  perseverance  which  consists  in  maintaining  the  faith 
under  trials  must  have  its  perfect  work,  that  is,  must  consist  not  merely  in 
single  good  acts,  but  embrace  the  whole  of  life  ;  i.  4.  Of  practical  Chris- 
tianity, he  says,  that  the  "  doer  of  the  work,"  tto^t^c  epyov,  is  blessed  in 
his  doing  /  i.  25. 

*  'Ev,  "  in,"  in  James,  i.  25,  ought  by  no  means  to  be  translated  through.     The  "  shall 

be,"  larai,  also,  implies,  that  James  considered  the  blessedness  not  merely  as  something 

proceeding  from  the  deed  as  an  outward  result,  but  as  something  involved  in  the  deed,  a 

feeling  that  necessarily  accompanied  it;  we  are  led  to  think  of  the  beatitudes  in  the  Ser- 

'  mou  on  the  Mount     Compare  also  Schneckenburger's  excellent  renrai-Ki  oc  this  passage 


504  THE    DOCTRINE    OP   JAMES. 

Although  Christianity  presented  itself  to  this  apostle  as  the  consum- 
mation of  the  law,  yet  he  hy  no  means  adopted  the  Ebionitish  notion,  that 
,Christ  had  only  perfected  the  Mosaic  law  by  the  addition  of  certain  moral 
prescriptions,  such  perhaps  as  are  given  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  sc 
that  he  might  be  considered  simply  as  the  Supreme  lawgiver  and  teacher ; 
but  he  acknowledged  as  the  peculiar  distinction  of  Christianity,  the  im- 
partation  of  a  new  divine  principle  of  life,  which,  by  its  operation  from 
within  outwardlyproduced  the  fulfilment  of  the  law.  He  beheld  in  the 
Messiah  the  author  of  a  new  moral  creation  through  the  divine  principle  of 
life  which  he  communicated  ;  he  describes  the  word  of  truth  as  the  instru- 
ment of  regeneration,  giving  birth  to  a  new  creation;  i.  18.  The  word 
(he  affirms)  must  penetrate  the  very  depths  of  human  nature,  and  by  an  in- 
ternal transforming  power  effect  its  deliverance  from  sin  ;  i.  21.  But  he 
was  very  far  from  believing  that  the  Christian  could  altogether  come  up  to 
the  requirements  of  the  law  of  liberty,  which  seeks  for  a  free  obedience 
proceeding  from  love,  and  could  thus  be  justified  by  his  own  course  of  life. 
He  declares  (including  himself)  that  "  in  many  things  we  all  offend  ;"  iii. 
2.  Every  man,  he  says,  must  be  penetrated  by  the  conviction  how  much 
he  stands  in  need  of  the  divine  mercy,  that  he  may  be  able  to  stand  before 
the  divine  tribunal ;  and  ought  to  be  impelled  by  this  consideration  to 
exercise  mercy  towards  others;  ii.  13. 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  differences 
between  the  two  apostles,  in  the  dogmatic  and  ethical  mode  of  their  instruc- 
tions, differences  to  which  in  fact  we  have  called  attention  ;  but  still  it  may 
be  shown,  that  though  the  Christian  spirit  appears  more  fully  developed 
and  more  perfectly  formed  in  one  scheme  of  doctrine  than  in  the  other,  yet 
the  same  spirit  pervades  both.  Paul,  though  he  considered  good  works 
as  the  necessary  marks  of  the  new  spiritual  creation,  and  the  neces- 
sary fruits  of  an  actual,  internal  righteousness,  would  certainly  not  have 
expressed  himself  exactly  in  this  manner,  that  a  man  is  justified  not  by 
faith  alone,  but  also  by  his  works,  that  faith  and  works  must  cooperate 
for  his  justification.  He  would  not  only  have  avoided  saying  this  in  re- 
ference to  the  legal  works  preceding  the  transformation  of  the  life  by 
faith,  (in  which  James  agrees  with  him,)  but  also  in  reference  to  the 
works  produced  by  faith ;  for  he  always  considered  faith  alone  as  that 
by  which  a  man  becomes  just  before  God,  and  the  source  from  which 
all  other  good  develops  itself  by  an  internal  necessity ;  and  the  life  of 
believers,  proceeding  from  faith,  is  always  alloyed  by  a  mixture  of  the 
flesh,  for  which  reason  a  justifying  power  cannot  be  attributed  even 
to  those  works  which  are  the  fruits  of  faith.  But  since  James,  as  we 
have  remarked,  acknowledges  the  continual  defects  of  the  Christian 
life  and  the  need  of  forgiveness  of  sin  even  to  the  recipient  of  the 
gospel — since  he  presupposes  that  the  Christian  can  only  obtain  that 
mercy  from  God  which  he  constantly  needs,  as  long  as  he  shows  mercy 
to  others — all  material  difference  vanishes.  Paul  approaches  nearer  to 
James  on  another  side,  where   he   is   less  dogmatically  exact,   and  is 


TIIE   NEW   SPIRIT    UNDER    OLD   FORMS.  505 

not  led  to  employ  the  strong  contrasts  which  are  frequent  in  the  con- 
troversial parts  of  his  writings,  for  even  according  to  his  own  views, 
works  necessarily  belong  to  the  Christian  life  as  an  expression  of  faith 
and  of  the  righteousness  obtained  by  it,  and  faith  must  be  verified  by  the 
whole  course  of  life  ;  hence  he  asserts,  on  occasions  when  it  was  of  im- 
portance to  give  prominence  to  this  truth,  that  every  man  will  receive 
his  deserts,  according  to  that  he  hath  done  in  his  earthly  life,  whether  it 
be  good  or  bad,  2  Cor.  v.  10.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  explain  this  mode  of 
expression  on  the  Pauline  principles,  and  to  show  its  perfect  harmony 
with  them.  In  the  works  which  proceed  from  faith,  the  difference  must 
be  verified  between  genuine  and  spurious  faith,  and  the  difference  will 
gradually  make  itself  known  according  to  the  degree  in  which  faith  has 
penetrated  the  life.  Although  in  redemption,  justification,  and  the  im- 
partation  of  a  new  divine  life,  by  which  man  is  first  rendered  capable  of 
accomplishing  good  works,  all  is  an  act  of  grace,  yet,  according  to  Paul's 
doctrine,  there  is  also  a  rewardable  righteousness,  and  the  bestowment 
of  a  reward,  in  proportion  as  men  show  themselves  active  when  the  new 
creation  has  been  effected,  according  as  they  make  use  of  the  grace 
bestowed  upon  them.  And  if  such  expressions,  though  strictly  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Pauline  doctrine,  were  taken  by  themselves,  they 
might,  like  those  of  James,  be  supposed  to  be  contradictory  to  it.  It  is 
in  these  expressions  that  we  find  the  doctrinal  type  of  James. 

Moreover,  as  James  was  altogether  a  Jew,  but  a  Jew  whose  views 
were  rendered  complete  by  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  it  was  his  aim 
to  lead  his  countrymen  by  the  same  way  which  he  had  himself  taken, 
from  Judaism  to  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  though  without  departing 
from  the  customary  national  theocratic  forms  ;  hence  he  did  not,  like 
Paul,  who  labored  among  the  Gentiles  that  stood  in  no  national  relation 
to  the  law,  represent  Christ  as  the  abolisher  of  the  law,  but  as  its  fulfiller; 
and  this  view  was  countenanced  by  Christ's  own  language  in  Matt.  v. 
17.*  Hence  the  law  to  him  became  changed  in  its  spirit;  from  being 
imperfect,  it  became  perfect ;  from  being  a  law  of  bondage,  it  became  a  law 
of  liberty.  But  he  received  the  new  spirit  under  the  old  forms,  similarly 
to  many  Catholics  who  have  attained  to  free  evangelical  convictions,  and 
yet  have  not  been  able  to  disengage  themselves  from  the  old  ecclesiastical 
forms;  or  like  Luther,  when  he  had  already  attained  to  a  knowledge  of 
justification  by  faith,  but  before  he  was  aware  of  the  consequences  flow- 
ing from  it  in  opposition  to  the  prevalent  doctrines  of  the  church.  And 
thus  James,  though  he  acknowledged  that  the  Gentiles  by  faith  in  Je- 
hovah and  the  Messiah  were  entitled  to  the  same  theocratic  privileges  as 
the  Jews  who  observed  the  law,  did  not  enforce  on  the  believing  Jews 
the  non-observance  of  the  law,  Acts  xv.  21.  And  what  he  says  to  Paul 
in  Acts  xxi.  21,f  implies  that  he  would  have  thought  it  wrong  to  induce 

*  See  Life  of  Christ,  p.  91. 

\  The  believing  Jews  needed  no  new  precepts ;  they  knew  what  they  were  bound  to 
observe  as  Jews.    See  p.  127. 


506  MODES   OF   ENFORCING   VERACITY. 

the  Jews  who  were  scattered  among  the  heathen  to  forsake  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law.  Now  Paul  also  was  far  from  doing  this ;  he 
allowed  the  Jews  to  remain  Jews,  as  he  allowed  the  Gentiles  to  retain 
everything  in  their  national  character  and  habits  which  did  not  contra- 
diet  the  spirit  of  the  gospel :  he  himself  did  not  repudiate  his  Jewish 
character  and  education,  but  celebrated  the  Jewish  feasts  with  the  Jews, 
when  there  was  opportunity.  But  since  he  considered  the  religious 
obligation  of  the  law  in  every  respect  as  abolished,  he  must  naturally 
have  been  less  scrupulous  in  its  outward  observance,  and  must  rather 
have  felt  himself  bound  to  depart  from  it  when  required  to  do  so  by 
higher  considerations,  whenever  the  observance  of  the  law  was  in  any 
way  incompatible  with  the  duties  and  claims  of  his  vocation,  as  for 
example,  when  it  obstructed  his  free  intercourse  with  the  heathen. 
Among  the  Gentiles  he  lived  as  one  by  birth  a  Gentile ;  Barnabas  and 
Peter  did  the  same  ;  Gal.  ii.  14.*  James  would  not  have  so  easily  agreed 
to  this,  nor  indeed  was  such  expansion  of  sentiment  required  for  his  pe- 
culiar sphere  of  labor,  since  his  adherence  to  the  observance  of  the  law 
rather  promoted  his  success  among  his  countrymen,  to  whom  his  special 
ministry  was  confined. 

With  the  difference  in  the  doctrinal  schemes  of  the  two  apostles, 
their  manner  of  enforcing  the  duty  of  veracity  is  also  connected.  James 
repeats  the  command  of  Christ  to  the  letter,  as  it  was  originally  given, 
yet  showing  at  the  same  time,  that  he  correctly  understood  its  sense 
and  spirit.  Among  Christians,  no  oath  ought  to  be  required  for  a  con- 
firmation of  what  they  asserted,  their  love  of  truth  and  mutual  confidence 
ought  to  be  so  great,  that  their  Yea  and  Nay  should  be  a  sufficient  pledge. 
It  was  their  duty  to  guard  from  the  first  against  the  guilt  of  falsehood 
or  perjury;  James  v.  12.  Paul  does  not  mention  Christ's  command  in 
this  verbal  form,  but  only  enjoins,  in  reference  to  the  disposition,  that 
Christians  should  speak  truth  to  one  another,  as  being  members  one  of 
another ;  and  because  language  was  intended  for  the  very  purpose  of 
maintaining  and  exhibiting  the  spiritual  communion,  in  which,  as  mem- 
bers of  the  same  body,  they  must  stand  to  one  another.  From  this  it 
was  easy  to  deduce  the  obligation  which  they  were  under  on  this  point 
towards  society  at  large,  since  all  men  as  rational  beings,  created  for  the 
realization  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  might  be  considered  members  one 
of  another,  and  language  was  in  like  manner  designed  for  the  mainte- 
nance and  exhibition  of  this  more  general  relation ;  Ephes.  iv.  25.  And 
he  had  confessedly  no  scruple,  when  sufficient  confidence  was  not  felt 
towards  him  by  all  the  persons  concerned,  and  where  it  was  of  special 

*  Perhaps  the  partisans  of  James,  mentioned  in  Gal.  ii.  12,  went  down  to  Antiocli  fo_ 
the  purpose  of  examining  whether  the  Jews  who  lived  among  the  Gentiles,  allowed 
themselves  to  be  led  into  violations  of  the  law,  which  they  were  not  justified  in  doing 
by  the  resolutions  of  the  apostolic  convention ;  but  it  does  not  follow  from  this,  that  they 
were  acting  by  the  command,  or  even  in  accordance  with  the  wish  of  James. 


GOD   NOT  THE   AUTHOR   OF   SIN.  507 

importance  to  obtain  undoubting  confidence  in  his  assertions,  to  make  use 
of  a  form  of  asseveration  which  would  be  deemed  equivalent  to  an  oath. 
As  the  ethical  element  predominates  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  so  an 
anxiety  for  the  exclusion  of  every  appearance  of  charging  the  causation 
of  sin  upon  God  is  very  conspicuous,  and  an  emphatic  maintenance  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will,  whose  self-determination  is  the  necessary  condition 
of  all  the  operations  of  divine  grace.  Let  no  one  excuse  himself  (is  the 
apostle's  doctrine)  for  yielding  to  evil,  on  the  plea*  that  he  could  not  with- 
stand its  enticements, — that  a  higher  power,  a  fatality,  a  divine  predesti- 
nation hurried  him  into  sin.  Far  be  it  from  God  to  tempt  any  man  to 
evil.  As  no  evil  can  affect  Him,  the  holy  and  blessed  One,  so  he  tempts 
no  one  to  evil ;  but  it  is  the  indwelling  sinful  desire  of  every  man  by 
which  he  is  seduced  to  evil.  This  also  makes  an  opening  for  the  temp- 
tations of  Satan,  yet  even  by  his  power  no  one  can  be  forced  to  sin 
against  his  will ;  iv.  V.  Thus  the  ground  is  taken  away  from  every  man 
for  throwing  off  the  blame  of  his  sins  by  pleading  the  temptations  pro- 
ceeding either  from  God  or  Satan ;  since  to  the  believer  the  ability  is 
given,  by  his  own  higher  moral  nature  (the  image  of  God  in  his  soul), 
and  the  guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  to  withstand  his  sinful  desires  and 
the  temptations  of  Satan ;  it  must  be  his  own  guilt  if  he  yield  and  allow 
himself  to  be  carried  away  to  the  commission  of  sin.  He  has  only  to 
subordinate  his  own  will  to  the  will  of  God,  and  in  communion  with  God 
to  withstand  the  evil  spirit,  who  will  then  flee  from  him ;  all  temptation 
to  evil  will  fail  before  a  will  that  is  in  real  earnest  and  devoted  to  God. 
Only  let  a  man  surrender  himself  to  God  by  a  steady  determination  of 
his  will,  and  God's  aid  will  not  be  wanting ;  i.  13-16  ;  iv.  1,  8.  James, 
like  Paul,  presupposes  two  principles  of  action  in  the  believer — the  image 
of  God  restored  through  Christ,  and  the  sinful  desire  which  still  cleaves 
to  the  soul,  and  renders  it  accessible  to  temptations  from  without.  When 
he  says  that  the  desire  bringeth  forth  sin,  (i.  15,)  it  is  not  meant,  that 
the  desire  itself  is  something  purely  natural,  or  morally  indifferent,  but 
it  is  rather  presupposed  that  the  element  in  human  nature,  according  to 
its  actual  condition,  which,  when  a  man  does  not  withstand  it,  but  sur- 
renders himself  to  it,  gives  birth  to  the  sinful  act,  is  in  itself  something 
sinful.  But  James  limits  himself,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  outward 
manifestations  of  the  moral  life  ;  he  does  not,  like  Paul  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  go  to  the  root  of  the  opposition  between  good  and  evil  in  the 
depths  of  the  human  heart ;  yet  he  furnishes,  even  on  this  side,  an  impor- 
tant link  in  the  complete  development  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  manner 
in  which  he  expresses  himself  respecting  the  free  determination  of  the  will 
in  relation  to  a  divine  causation  in  evil  and  good,  furnishes  us  with  an 
important  complement  to  Paul's  doctrinal  scheme,  where,  (as  in  discuss- 
ing the  doctrine  of  election,  predestination,  and  the  unconditionality  ol 
the  divine  decrees,)  owing  to  his  peculiar  character,  and  his  practical  ot 
argumentative  object,  only  one  side  of  Christian  truth  is  brought  forward 
only  the  fundamental  nature  of  the  Christian  dispensation  is  dwelt  on 


508  THE   DOCTRINE    OF    JOHN. 

and  other  aspects  of  it  are  put  in  the  background.  Hence,  if  one  will 
form  a  doctrinal  system  from  such  single  passages,  not  taken  in  con- 
nexion with  the  analogy  of  the  whole  New  Testament  doctrine,  errors 
must  arise,  which  he  would  have  learned  to  avoid,  by  comparing  the 
degrees  of  development  and  peculiar  schemes  of  doctrine  belonging  to 
the  several  apostles  which  serve  mutually  to  complete  one  another.* 


CHAPTER    IY. 


THE   DOCTRINE    OP   JOHN. 


John,  as  compared  with  Paul,  had  this  point  in  common  with  James, 
that,  by  his  peculiar  mental  development,  he  was  not  adapted  and  dis- 
posed to  that  intellectual  cast  of  thought  which  distinguished  the  dialectic 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  But  if  in  James  the  practical  element  predomi- 
nated, in  John  we  find  the  intuitive,  though  deeply  imbued  with  the 
practical ;  he  presents  broad  contemplative  views  of  the  fundamental  re- 
lations of  the  spiritual  life,  rather  than  trains  of  thought,  in  which,  as  in 
Paul's  writings,  distinctions  and  contrasts  are  made  with  logical  precision 
and  minuteness.  In  reference  also  to  the  peculiar  development  of  his 
Christian  life,  he  had  not  been  led  like  Paul  to  faith  in  the  Redeemer 
through  severe  conflicts  and  opposition,  nor  like  him  at  last  attained 
peace  after  a  violent  crisis.  He  resembled  James  in  having  become  a 
Christian  through  a  course  of  quiet  development,  but  differed  from  him 
in  this  respect,  that  his  higher  life  had  not  first  been  moulded  to  a  pecu- 
liar form  in  Judaism,  from  which  he  had  been  gradually  brought  to  faith 
in  Christ,  his  conceptions  of  Christianity  having  been  modified  by  his 
former  views ;  but  from  the  first,  the  whole  development  of  his  higher 
life  had  proceeded  from  a  personal  observation  of  the  appearing  of  Christ 
and  by  intercourse  with  him.  As  the  consciousness  of  his  own  moral 
disunion  was  awakened  by  the  contemplation  of  a  perfect  divinely-human 
life,  in  which  the  archetype  of  man  was  realized  before  his  eyes,  so  by 
continuing  to  live  in  communion  with  this  model  of  perfection,  he  gained 

*  In  reference  to  all  the  topics  discussed  in  this  chapter,  I  wish  to  direct  the  attention 
of  my  readers  to  an  Essay  by  Frommann,  a  young  theologian,  distinguished,  and  dear  to  me, 
(now  Dr.  Frommann,  pastor  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  church  at  St.  Petersburgh,)  in  the 
Studien  unci  Kritiken,  1833,  part  1.  It  will  be  clear  to  the  attentive  reader,  that  in  the  re- 
presentation given  above,  I  have  viewed  the  subject,  not  under  the  light  of  a  contracted 
dogmatism  which  would  adjust  all  contradictions,  but  from  that  position  which  unpreju- 
diced historical  investigation  and  genetic  development  enable  me  to  occupy.  But  I  can- 
not hope  to  secure  myself  against  the  suspicions  of  the  prejudiced,  who,  of  all  persons, 
deem  themselves  the  most  free  from  prejudice. 


CHARACTER  OF  JOHN'S  THEOLOGY.  509 

power  to  overcome  that  disunion.  Hence  everything  in  his  view  turned 
on  one  simple  contrast ; — divine  life  in  communion  with  the  Redeemer, 
— death  in  estrangement  from  him.  And  as  the  whole  of  his  piety  was 
the  result  of  what  he  immediately  saw  and  experienced  in  his  intercourse 
with  the  Redeemer,  all  his  modes  of  religious  thought  had  their  origin  in 
the  life  of  Jesus,  and  might  be  considered  as  so  many  reflections  of  it. 
It  was  this  which  gave  them  a  vital  unity,  so  that  it  was  not  possible  to 
distinguish  them  into  the  practical  and  theoretical.  This  is  shown  in 
those  pregnant  words  by  which  his  style  is  marked, — Life,  Light,  and 
Truth  ;  and  their  opposites — Death,  Darkness,  and  a  Lie.  As  in  com- 
munion with  God,  the  original  fountain  of  life,  which  can  be  obtained 
only  through  his  self-revelation  in  the  Logos,  the  spirit  of  man  finds  its 
true  life, — as  when  in  this  true  life,  the  consciousness  of  the  spirit  devel- 
ops itself,  the  life  becomes  the  light  of  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  lives  in 
the  truth  as  its  vital  principle;  so  by  the  separation  of  the  spirit  from  its 
original,  by  the  disjunction  of  the  knowledge  of  man's  self  and  of  the 
world  from  the  knowledge  of  God,  death,  misery,  darkness  and  falsehood 
are  the  result.  The  human  spirit  oreated  after  the  image  of  the  divine 
Logos,  must  be  enlightened  by  communion  with  this  divine  fountain  of 
life  ;  a  life  in  God,  divine  life  as  the  true  life  of  the  spirit,  is  naturally  ac- 
companied by  the  true  light  of  knowledge.  But  since  man  by  the  direc- 
tion of  his  will  has  turned  himself  to  the  undivine,  he  has  in  so  doing 
estranged  himself  from  the  source  of  his  true  light  and  life,  and  is  no 
longer  in  a  state  susceptible  of  its  reception.  The  divine  Logos  never 
ceases,  indeed,  to  manifest  himself  to  the  souls  of  men,  as  Paul  declares, 
that  in  God  they  live  and  move  and  are ;  his  light  shines  in  the  darkness 
of  the  human  race,  who  have  turned  away  from  God ;  and  from  its  illu- 
mination emanated  all  the  goodness  and  truth  that  preceded  the  per- 
sonal appearance  of  the  Logos ;  but  this  revelation  was  opposed  by  an 
impenetrable  intensity  of  darkness.*     Hence  the  Logos  himself  must 

*  I  cannot  entirely  agree  with  the  interpretation  proposed  by  Frommann,  in  his  excel- 
lent work  on  the  doctrinal  views  of  John  ;  Leipzig,  1839,  p.  249 ; — that  John,  in  the  first 
clause  of  i.  5,  depicts  the  relation  of  human  nature  in  its  original  state  to  the  revelation  of 
the  divine  Logos,  and  that  in  the  second  part  of  this  verse,  "and  the  darkness,"  kclI  tj 
oKoria,  he  speaks  of  that  relation  since  the  Fall.  According  to  this,  the  anoxia  in  the  first 
clause,  to  use  the  language  of  the  schoolmen,  would  describe  the  state  of  man  in  the  con- 
dition of  pura  naturalia  as  informis,  negative,  and  from  the  revelation  of  the  Logos  the 
gratia  informans  must  proceed,  which  man  required  for  the  perfection  of  his  spiritual 
nature.  But  in  John,  we  never  find  the  representation  of  such  a  mere  negative  relation 
of  the  human  spirit  to  the  Logos,  as  existing  apart  from  communion  with  him,  and  possess- 
ing a  susceptibility  not  yet  satisfied.  "Darkness"  always  denotes,  in  his  phraseology,  an 
actual  opposition  against  the  divine  light  of  the  Logos,  a  predominance  of  the  undivine. 
It  is  contrary  to  the  style  of  his  conceptions,  that  he  should  suppose  the  spirit  of  man, 
formed  after  the  image  of  the  Logos,  to  be  in  its  original  state  otherwise  than  in  commu- 
nion with  that  divine  source  of  life  and  light.  Verse  4  relates  to  what  the  Logros  was  or 
ought  to  be,  according  to  his  essential  nature,  to  mankind ;  and  in  verse  5,  John  passes  od 
immediately  to  the  state  of  mankind  estranged  from  God  by  the  misdirection  of  their  will. 


510  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    JOHN". 

break  through  the  separating  limits — bring  himself  nigh  to  man  estranged 
from  God — reveal  and  communicate  himself  as  the  divine  fountain  of  life 
in  the  form  of  an  assumed  humanity,  a  visible  human  life  serving  him 
only  as  a  medium  for  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  life  which  is  in  him, 
and  for  bringing  men  to  a  participation  of  it.     John  i.  7-14. 

Satan  appears  as  the  summit  and  representative  of  this  self-seeking 
tendency,  dissevered  from  connexion  with  God,  and  hence  given  over  to 
darkness  and  falsehood ;  John  viii.  44.  He  stands  not  in  the  truth  ;* 
with  the  disposition  that  has  become  a  second  nature,  he  can  find  in  the 
truth  not  a  single  point  on  which  to  rest,  because  there  is  no  truth  in 
him.  Owing  to  his  predominant  tendency  to  falsehood  he  wants  the 
organ  requisite  to  receive  the  truth,  and  to  connect  himself  with  it,  to 
admit  and  to  appropriate  the  revelation  of  truth. 

Where  a  created  spirit  yields  itself  wholly  and  purely  to  the  self- 
revealing  God,  or  the  Logos,  there  is  truth.  Wherever  he  dissevers  him- 
self from  this  connexion,  and  lives,  thinks,  and  acts  in  this  state  of  selfish 


*  Frommann  maintains,  in  his  work  before  quoted,  p.  332,  that  Satan,  according  to 
John's  views,  is  no  other  than  "  the  seductive  spirit  of  the  world  conceived  of  in  concrete 
personality;"  the  principle  of  evil  in  the  world  hypostatized ;  and  that  the  idea  of  a  fallen 
Intelligence  is  altogether  foreign  to  this  apostle.  But  if  this  were  so,  we  must  explain 
his  language  in  one  of  three  ways.  Either  he  intentionally  chose  the  form  of  such  a 
personification ;  or  the  prevalent  religious  conception^,  which  had  proceeded  from  an 
embodiment  of  the  idea  of  evil,  had  taken  possession  of  his  mind  without  his  making  it  a 
subject  of  special  reflection  (which  is  Schleiermacher's  view) ;  or  he  really  considered 
Satan  as  an  absolute  evil  being  who  had  existed  from  eternity.  There  appears  nothing 
to  favor  the  first  supposition ;  with  respect  to  the  second,  this  doctrine  is  so  closely  inter- 
woven with  the  whole  system  of  John's  theology,  that  we  cannot  help  believing  that  he 
had  been  compelled  to  reflect  on  the  meaning  of  this  representation,  and  to  form  a  definite 
idea  respecting  the  nature  of  Satan  and  his  relation  to  God.  But  the  admission  of  an  ab- 
solute Dualism  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  John's  theism.  There  remains  then  no  other 
alternative  but  the  supposition  that  he  considered  Satan  as  the  Intelligence  who  first 
apostatized  from  God.  The  passage  in  John  viii.  44  contains  nothing  contradictory  to 
this  supposition.  The  persons  whom  Christ  there  declares  to  resemble  Satan  in  their 
dispositions,  he  could  not  intend  to  describe  as  absolutely  evil  by  nature,  but  as  those  who, 
by  the  repeated  suppression  of  their  nature  derived  Jrom  God,  had  attained  this  unsus- 
ceptibility  for  truth  and  goodness,  this  habitual  perverseness.  Frommann  says,  p.  335, 
that  the  fall  of  a  good  angel  presupposes  an  original  evil  principle  operating  upon  him, 
and,  that  in  order  to  explain  the  existence  of  Satan,  we  are  again  driven  to  the  assumption 
of  another  Satan.  But  this  objection  is  obviated  by  what  we  have  before  remarked 
respecting  the  necessary  inexplicability  of  the  origin  of  sin,  founded  in  the  very  idea  of  evil, 
see  p.  388.  "We  must  again  maintain  what  we  have  asserted  against  all  attempts  to  find 
an  absolute  Dualism  in  John.  The  doctrine  of  a  fallen  spirit  from  whom  all  evil  pro- 
ceeds, we  are  justified  in  presuming  to  be  the  only  one  by  which  the  idea  of  a  Satan  can 
harmonize  with  the  strictly  theistical  conception  which  evidently  lies  at  the  basis  o. 
John's  theology,  if  nothing  in  it  can  be  proved  contradictory  to  this  supposition,  ^s  cer- 
tainly nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  proved.  But  such  a  Dualism  as  is  founded  in  Hera- 
cleon's  idea  of  Satan,  we  cannot  presuppose  without  hesitation  in  the  idea  of  John,  but  it 
will  be  necessary  to  produce  distinct  expressions  which  afford  positive  evidence  of  such  a 
conception. 


MAN    ESTRANGED   FROM    GOD.  511 

separation,  there  is  falsehood.  As  the  truth,  according  to  John,  proceeds 
from  the  tendency  of  the  whole  life  towards  God,  the  true  and  the  good 
are  in  his  view  one,  as  on  the  other  hand,  are  sin  and  falsehood.  When 
the  spirit  withdraws  itself  from  the  revelation  of  eternal  truth,  and  sup- 
presses its  original  consciousness  of  truth,  self-deception  follows,  and  the 
deception  of  others.  Hence  Satan  is  represented  as  a  liar,  and  the  father 
of  lies.  And  thus  have  we  the  universal  contrast:  those  who  are  in  a 
state  of  vital  communion  with  God,  who  have  "received  a  divine  life,  are 
born  of  God,  and-hence  are  called  the  children  of  God  ;  and  those  who 
live  in  communion  with  that  spirit  from  whom  at  first  proceeded  all  the 
tendencies  of  sin  and  falsehood,  or  who  are  of  the  world,  belong  to  the 
world — understanding  by  the  world  not  the  objective  world  as  such,  the 
creation  of  God,  which,  as  founded  in  the  Logos,  and  as  a  revelation  of 
God,  is  in  itself  something  good,  but  the  world  in  a  subjective  reference, 
inasmuch  as  the  consciousness  of  man  is  held  by  it,  and  separates  it  from 
its  relation  to  God,  so  that  a  consciousness  of  the  world  torn  from  its 
connection  with  a  consciousness  of  God  becomes  all-controlling. 

Since,  according  to  John,  participation  in  the  divine  life  depends 
entirely  on  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  this  forms  a  new  era  of  development  in 
opposition  to  the  former  prevailing  principle,  and  to  that  state  of  estrange- 
ment from  God,  and  of  moral  corruption  from  which  believers  are  extri- 
cated. Though  we  find  in  John  no  such  ample  representation  of  human 
nature  in  its  estrangement  from  God,  as  is  delineated  in  Paul's  writings, 
(which  may  be  explained  from  the  peculiarity  of  his  doctrinal  method, 
and  the  peculiar  style  of  his  writings,)  still  it  may  be  easily  perceived 
that  his  views  were  essentially  the  same,  and  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  essence  of  Christianity.  We  find  here  the  same  contrast  between 
what  human  nature  is,  and  is  able  to  produce  in  the  state  of  estrange- 
ment from  God,  and  that  higher  position  to  which  it  is  raised  by  the 
transforming  influence  of  a  divine  principle  of  life  communicated  to  it, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  contrast  of  the  carnal,  oapumbv,  and  the  spiritual, 
TTvevjxaTiKov.  When  John,  in  the  introduction  to  his  Gospel  (i.  12), 
describes  the  children  of  God  as  those  who  owed  this  distinction,  not  to 
their  descent  from  any  particular  race  of  men,  and  in  general  not  to  any- 
thing which  lies  within  the  compass  of  human  nature; — when  Christ  says 
to  Nicodemus,  that  what  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ; — such  language  is, 
in  the  first  place,  opposed  to  the  Jewish  notion  that  outward  descent 
from  the  theocratic  nation  gave  an  indisputable  right  to  participation  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  in  the  dignity  of  his  children ;  but  this  particular 
application  is  deduced  from  a  truth  expressed  in  the  most  general  terms, 
namely,  the  general  position,  that  the  natural  man  by  his  disposition  is 
estranged  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  must  receive  a  new  divine  life, 
in  order  to  become  a  member  of  it.  Hence  in  John,  as  well  as  in  Paul, 
the  same  conditions  and  preparations  are  required  for  participation  in  the 
blessing  which  Christ  is  ready  to  bestow  on  mankind,  the  consciousness 
of  bondage  in  the  God-related  nature  of  man, — the  consciousness  of  per- 


512  EECEPTIVITY   FOR   REDEMPTION. 

sonal  sinfulness — a  sense  of  the  need  of  help  and  redemption,  a  longing 
after  a  new  divine  life,  which  alone  can  satisfy  all  the  wants  of  the  higher 

,  nature  of  man.  We  may  here  adduce  the  allusion  to  the  brazen  serpent 
(iii.  14),  where  the  Jews,  who  in  believing  confidence  expected  by  look- 
ing at  it  to  be  healed  of  their  wounds,  represent  those  who,  under  a  sense 
of  the  destruction  that  threatens  them  from  their  spiritual  maladies,  look 
to  the  Redeemer  with  confidence  for  spiritual  healing ;  and  all  those 
parables  in  John's  Gospel,  in  which  Christ  speaks  of  thirst  for  that  water 
of  life,  and  hunger  for  that  bread  of  heaven,  which  he  is  willing  to  bestow. 
Accordingly  John,  in  his  first  Epistle,  says  that  whoever  believes  him- 

p  self  to  be  free  from  sin,  is  destitute  of  uprightness,  and  deceives  himself; 
that  such  a  man  makes  God  a  liar,  since  he  acts  as  if  all  which  the  earlier 
divine  revelations  have  asserted  respecting  human  sinfulness,  and  which 
is  implied  in  God's  sending  a  Redeemer  to  the  human  race,  were  false  ; 
]  John  i.  10. 

But  in  order  that  men  may  attain  to  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and  avail 
themselves  of  his  aid,  the  outward  revelation  of  the  divine,  with  all  the 
attestations  that  accompanied  it  in  the  external  world,  are  not  sufficient. 
Without  the  inward  sense  for  the  divine  which  is  outwardly  manifested 
in  the  person  of  the  Saviour,  they  can  give  it  no  admission  into  their 
hearts.  The  outward  power  of  the  divine  can  exert  no  compulsive  in- 
fluence, but  requires  the  mind  to  be  already  in  a  susceptible  state,  in 
order  to  produce  its  right  effect.  Without  this,  all  external  revelations 
and  appeals  are  in  vain  ;  the  unsusceptible  "  have  eyes  but  they  see  not ;" 
John  xii.  40.  Hence  the  attainment  of  faith  depends  on  a  preparative 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  men's  minds,  by  which  a  sense  of  the 
divine  is  awakened  within  them,  and  a  consciousness  of  their  higher 
wants.  Thus  a  susceptibility  for  what  will  give  real  satisfaction  is  de- 
veloped, so  that  faith  naturally  results  from  the  conjunction  of  this  inward 
susceptibility  with  the  external  divine  revelation.  To  this  Christ  refers 
when  he  says  to  the  Jews,  (to  whom,  on  account  of  the  enthralment  of 
their  minds  in  earthly  things,  his  words  were  necessarily  unintelligible 
and  strange,)  in  order  to  draw  their  attention  to  the  grounds  of  their 
being  offended  with  him  (John  vi.  44,  45),  that  they  should  not  think 
that  they  could  come  to  him,  that  is,  attain  to  faith  in  him,  with  such  a 
tendency  of  their  disposition.*  No  one  (he  declared)  could  come  unto 
him  who  was  not  drawn  to  him  by  the  Father  who  sent  him ;  who  had 
not  heard  the  awakening  voice  of  the  heavenly  Father  in  his  inmost  soul, 
and  followed  it.  These  words  have  indeed  been  misunderstood  by  the 
advocates  of  the  Augustinian  system,  as  if  a  divine  excitement,  inde- 
pendent of  all  human  self-determination,  were  intended  as  producing  that 
susceptibility  for  the  divine ;    but  this  would   be  to    impose  a  sense 

*  In  contrast  to  their  bodily  coming  to  him ;  which  was  only  on  account  of  their 
bodily  necessities,  for  whioh  they  thus  sought  to  obtain  relief;  whereas  the  true  spiritual 
coming  to  him  must  proceed  from  a  feeling  of  their  real,  spiritual  necessities. 


RECEPTIVITY    FOR    REDEMPTION.  513 

foreign  to  the  connexion  and  the  design  of  the  discourse ;  and  greater 
importance  has  been  attached  to  a  single  metaphorical  expression  than  it 
can  have  in  such  a  connexion.  Certainly  the  divine  impulse  must  be 
here  contrasted  with  what  is  merely  sensuous  and  human  ;  and  the 
figurative  expressions  denote  the  power  with  which  the  divine  impulse, 
when  it  is  once  felt,  operates  on  the  soul, — the  power  with  which  the 
divine  manifests  itself  to  the  self-consciousness ;  but  it  is  by  no  means 
said  that  this  divine  impulse  of  an  operation  *of  God  to  arouse  the  sup- 
pressed knowledge  of  God  acts  alone,  and  that  man,  by  his  free  self- 
determination,  does  nothing  to  promote  it.  This  supposition  would  be 
inconsistent  with  the  design  of  all  the  passages  of  this  kind,  since,  taken 
in  their  connexion,  the  words  are  intended  to  awake  men  to  a  sense  of 
their  criminal  unsusceptibility  as  the  cause  of  their  unbelief.  It  would 
also  contradict  John's  declaration  of  the  condemnation  that  accompanied 
the  appearance  of  the  Redeemer  and  the  publication  of  the  gospel ;  for 
this  condemnation  implies  the  fact,  that  in  the  different  reception  given 
by  men  to  the  gospel,  their  different  susceptibility  or  unsusceptibility  for 
believing  is  manifested,  and  thus  the  difference  of  their  entire  disposition 
and  character. 

According  to  the  doctrinal  views  of  John,  a  two-fold  meaning  is 
attached  to  the  phrases,  to  be  of  God,  elvai  kit  deov,  and  to  be  of  the  truth, 
elvai  etc  tt/c  dXrjdeiag.  They  either  indicate,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the 
words,  the  quickening  first  proceeding  from  faith  through  the  divine 
spirit  of  life,  which  is  the  spirit  of  truth  ;  or  in  a  subordinate  sense,  the 
general  contact  of  the  human  mind  with  God,  the  taste  for  the  true  and 
the  divine,  that  inward  susceptibility  founded  on  the  developed  know- 
ledge of  God,  which  is  the  preparative  for  faith.  In  reference  to  the 
latter  meaning  it  is  said,  in  John  viii.  47,  "  He  that  is  of  God,  heareth 
God's  words  ;"  and  xviii.  37,  "Every  one  that  is  of  the  truth,  heareth 
my  voice."  Hence,  though  John  presents  in  diametric  opposition  the 
idea  of  the  natural  man  estranged  from  God,  and  the  man  who  is  born 
of  God,  yet,  according  to  his  doctrine,  various  steps  and  transitions  in 
the  phenomenal  world  must  be  admitted  between  the  first  condition  and 
the  second,  according  as  the  original  consciousness  of  truth  and  of  God 
which  has  been  suppressed  by  the  sinful  bias  of  the  will,  more  or  less 
prevents  men  from  hearing  the  voice  of  God,  and  following  the  drawings 
of  their  heavenly  Father.*  The  slumbering  sense  of  God  may  indeed  be 
awakened  by  the  immediate  impression  of  the  glory  manifested  in  the 
appearance  of  Christ ;  but  it  may  also  happen  that  a  man,  by  following 
the  drawing  of  his  heavenly  Father  antecedent  to  the  revelation  of  Christ, 
uprightly  strives  after  the  divine  and  the  good,  and  such  a  one  is  led 
through  the  divine  to  the  divine.  The  confused  partial  revelation  of 
God  which  had  hitherto  illuminated  the  darkness  of  his  soul,  and  con- 
ducted him  in  life,  leads  him  to  the  revelation  of  the  divine  original  in 

*  The  darkness  which  cannot  admit  the  divine  light  that  shines  upon  it. 


514  THE   INCARNATION    OF   THE    LOGOS. 

human  form,  and  he  rejoices  actually  to  behold  the  archetype  in  its 
effulgence  which  had  hitherto  shone  upon  him  with  only  a  dim  and 
distant  lustre  ;  John  iii.  21. 

With  respect  to  John's  i<lea  of  the  work  of  redemption,  that  appears 
most  prominent  which  he  had  received  from  the  immediate  observation 
of  the  life  of  Christ,  and  its  immediate  impression  on  his  religious  self- 
consciousness.     The  life  of  Christ  as  the  humanization  of  the  Divine,  of 
which   the   design   was  to  give   a   divine  elevation  to  man,  is  the  self- 
revelation  of  the  divine  Logos  (as  the  revealing  principle  for  the  mysteri- 
ous Essence  of  God)  in  the  form  of  humanity,  appropriated  by  him  in 
•order  to  communicate  divine  life  to  human  nature,  and  to  transform  it 
into  a  medium  for  the  revelation  of  the  divine  life.     John's  remarkable 
words,  "  The  Logos  became  man,  and  we  have  beheld  his  glory  as  it 
was  revealed  inhumanity,"  describe  the  nature  of  Christ's  appearance, 
and  what  mankind  are  to  become  through  Him  who  is  the  central  point 
of  Christian  faith  and  life.     The  same  sentiments  are  expressed  in  his 
first  Epistle,  "  We  announce  to  you  as  eye-witnesses,  the  manifestation 
of  the  eternal  fountain  of  life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  in  order  that 
you  may  enter  into  fellowship  with  it."     He  states  as  the  essential  marks 
of  this  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  in  human  form,  that  he  appeared 
full  of  grace  and  truth ;  grace,  which  means  the  communicative  love  of 
God,  God  as  love ;  and  truth,  according  to  John's  conceptions  of  it,  as 
we  have  already  remarked,  is  not  anything  speculative  and  abstract,  but 
proceeds  from  the  life,   and  embraces  the  whole  unity  of  the  life,  and 
hence  is  one  with  goodness  and  holiness.     Truth  is  the  essential  predi- 
cate  of  the  inward   unity  of  the   divine  life ;  and   Christ    (in   John's 
Gospel)  calls  himself  the  Truth  and  the  Life.     Hence,  the  ideas  of  love 
and  holiness  are  the  two  divine  attributes  which  (as  far  as  it  is  possible 
to  reduce  John's  pregnant  words  to  precise  forms  of  thought)  will  most 
nearly  express  what  he  represents  as  the  characteristic  of  the  glory  of 
God  revealed  in  the  life  of  Christ,  and  agree  with  his  using  love  and 
holiness  in  his  first  epistle  as  designations  of  the  Divine  Being  generally.* 
God  has  been  glorified  in  Christ  (John  xiii.  31) ;  in  him  as  the  Son  of 
Man,  by  whom  the  archetype  of  humanity  is  realized ; — that  is,  he  has 
exhibited  in  human  nature  the  glory  of  God,  the  perfect  image  of  God 
as  holy  love.     As  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  was  destined 
to  glorify  God,  that  is,  to  manifest  him  in  his  glory  with  self-conscious- 
ness—that is  now  fulfilled  by  the  Son  of  God  in  human  form.     The  partial 
revelation  of  the  heavenly  Father  in  the  obscure  subjective  consciousness 
of  man,  and  his  perfect  revelation  in  the  appearance  of  the  Son,  are  mu- 
tually related  ;  the  former  was  a  preparation  for  the  latter ;  and  the  lat 
ter  reflectc  fresh  illumination  on  the  former.     As  whoever  understands 

*  John  does  not  make  use  of  the  second  term  precisely,  but  it  is  implied  in  what  he 
says  ;  for  when  he  affirms  in  1  John  i.  5,  "  God  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all,' 
since  darkn<*«  is  a  designation  of  sin,  light,  by  contrast,  is  expressive  of  holiness. 


THE  INCARNATION    OF    THE   LOGOS.  515 

that  revelation  of  God  which  pierces  through  the  thick  darkness  of  the 
soul,  must  be  attracted  by  the  perfect  revelation  of  the  same  God  in  his 
Son,  it  follows,  that  whoever  knows  the  Father  must  necessarily  recog- 
nise the  Father  in  the  Son, — while  the  not  recognising,  or  the  denying 
of  the  Son,  is  a  proof  that  a  man  knows  not  the  Father,  and  is  estranged 
from  him.  The  image  of  the  Father,  in  his  holy  love  to  man,  is  perfectly 
exhibited  in  the  Son,  and  in  him  also  was  first  revealed  in  a  manner  com- 
prehensible to  man  what  a  being  that  God  is,"  whose  holy  personality  man 
was  created  to  represent.*  Through  him  God  closes  up  the  chasm  that 
separated  him  from  the  human  race,  and  imparts  himself  to  them  in  the 
communion  of  a  divine  life  ;  and  by  that  life  it  is  taught  that  all  living 
knowledge  of  God  can  only  proceed  from  life ;  and  thus  in  all  these 
respects  he  could  say,  "  Whoever  hath  not  the  Son,  also  hath  not  the 
Father." 

The  Son  is  a  perfect  personality  in  humanity,  in  which  the  eternal 
personality  of  God  is  imaged.  Thus  by  the  drawing  of  the  Father  man 
is  brought  to  the  Son,  and  through  the  beholding  of  the  Son  he  is  led  to 
the  Father.  Along  with  the  Son  man  loses  the  Father,  and  with  the 
Father  he  loses  the  Son.  This  is  a  position  which  appears  with  increas- 
ing luminousness  in  the  historical  development  of  mankind,  and  to  it  his- 
tory is  constantly  giving  a  clearer  commentary. 

John  contemplates  the  whole  life  of  Christ  from  the  beginning  as  a 
revelation  of  the  glory  of  the  Divine  Logos,  as  in  short  a  connected  rev- 
elation of  God  ;  and  hence  the  divine  in  reference  to  Christ  must  never 
be  viewed  as  something  isolated  and  extraueous.  His  miracles  also,  as 
marks  of  a  divine  power  controlling  nature;  as  witnesses  to  the  presence 
of  such  a  power,  are  not  explicable  from  natural  causes  in  the  phenome- 
nal world;  they  cannot  be  regarded  as  isolated  or  superadded  from  with- 
out, as  a  new  order  of  facts  differing  in  their  essential  qualities  from  the 
other  works  of  Christ.  The  originally  indwelling  glory  of  God,  at  the 
beginning  of  his  public  ministry  as  the  Messiah,  was  entirely  veiled  under 
the  ordinary  forms  of  human  life;  but  from  the  beginning  of  his  miracles, 
this  glory  coming  forth  on  particular  occasions  from  its  concealment, 
manifested  itself  in  such  results  in  the  world  of  the  senses  that  even  car- 
nal men  might  be  roused  to  perceive  the  presence  of  the  Divine.  It  is  only 
in  reference  to  this  beginning  of  a  new  epoch  in  his  ministry  for  the  reve- 
lation of  the  glory  of  God  among  mankind,  that  John  distinguishes  the 
beginning  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  (iL-ll)  as  the  beginning  of  the  revela- 
tion of  his  glory.  When  he  tells  us,  that  the  Baptist  saw  the  Spirit  of 
God  descending  on  the  Redeemer,  by  which  he  was  distinguished  as  the 
personage  who  would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  certainly  did  not 

*  After  Christ  had  said  (John  vi.  45)  that  all  must  be  led  to  him  by  the  voice  of  his 
Father  speaking  in  their  hearts,  he  guards  against  a  misapprehension,  as  if  this  was  in 
itself  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  Father.  Thi3  only  the  Son  possesses,  and  he  alono 
can  reveal  it.  The  former  must  be  therefore  something  preparative,  a  guide  to  mora 
perfect  knowledge. 


516  THE   MIRACLES   OF   CHRIST. 

mean  to  intimate  that  Christ,  according  to  the  common  Jewish  and  Ju- 
daizing-Christian  view,  was  then  first  furnished  with  the  fulness  of  Divine 
pdwer  for  his  Messianic  calling ; — for  John's  mode  of  contemplating  hie 
character  is  most  decidedly  opposed  to  such  views.  According  to  his 
own  conceptions,  since  Christ  was  no  other  than  the  Logos  himself  incar- 
nate, all  that  was  divine  in  former  revelations  became  concentrated  in 
him  ;  hence,  single,  transitory  impulses  and  revelations  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  could  not  be  attributed  to  him  ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  illumin- 
ated and  inspired  former  prophets  partially  and  occasionally,  dwelt  in 
him  from  the  beginning  in  its  totality,  and  operated  by  him  from  this 
time  in  those  extraordinary  signs  which  were  perceptible  to  common  men. 
It  was  precisely  because  the  Son  possessed  his  divine  life,  not  as  some- 
thing communicated  from  without,  but  dwelling  in  his  very  being,  and 
essential  to  it,  because  the  divine  fountain  of  life  itself  was  manifested  in 
him,  that  he  alone  could  communicate  divine  life  to  others,  John  v.  26  ; 
and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  he  administers,  is  no  other  than 
the  immersion  of  human  nature  in  the  divine  life  communicated  by  him, 
so  that  it  becomes  completely  imbued  with  it ;  John  vii.  39. 

But  as  the  miracles  of  Christ  appear  sometimes  in  relation  to  the  in- 
ward essence  of  his  appearance,  to  the  glory,  doi-a,  which  proceeded  from 
the  indwelling  of  the  Logos  as  simply  belonging  to  his  nature ;  so,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  are  the  marks  or  signs  of  the  revelation  of  this  indwell- 
ing glory  for  carnal  men,  in  order  to  lead  them  from  his  appearance  in 
the  sensuous  world  to  the  Divine,  to  excite  their  susceptibility  for  the 
total  impression  and  display  of  the  Divine  glory  revealed  in  the  Son  of 
Man.  In  this  sense,  Christ  said  to  Nathaniel,  whose  faith  was  founded 
on  these  outward  signs,  "Thou  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these;  from 
this  time  thou  shalt  see  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  angels  of  God  as- 
cending and  descending  on  the  Son  of  Man."  Greater  than  all  the  signs 
and  wonders  which  attended  or  followed  it  was  his  advent  itself;  for  by 
it  the  chasm  between  heaven  and  earth  was  closed,  it  became  the  bond 
of  communion  between  both,  the  medium  by  which  the  fulness  of  the 
Divine  power  was  poured  forth  on  mankind,  and  in  comparison  with 
which  the  total  assemblage  of  Divine  communications  to  the  human  race, 
all  earlier  Angelophanies  and  Theophanies,  were  only  as  so  many  single 
rays  of  the  Deity. 

We  thus  ascertain  the  gradations  in  the  use  of  the  term  faith  by 
John.  Either  he  understands  by  it  the  acknowledgment  of  a  higher 
power  proceeding  from  impressions  made  on  the  senses,  from  the  im- 
pression of  extraordinary  facts  in  the  sensible  world,  as  in  ii.  23  ;  or  he 
presupposes  the  possession  of  the  heart  by  an  immediate  spiritual  im- 
pression of  the  Divine  in  the  life  and  words  of  Christ,  as  was  exhibited  in 
Peter's  confession ;  vi.  68. 

Though  John  presents,  with  peculiar  earnestness,  the  self-revelation 
and  self-impartation  of  Christ  as  the  incarnate  Logos  through  the  whole 
of  his  earthly  life  for  an  object  of  believing  appropriation,  yet  it  is  evi 


TUB    SUFFERINGS    O*    CHRIST.  517 

dent  from  various  intimations,  that  he  attributes  the  same  importance  aa 
Paul  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  the  work  of  redemption.  As  far  as 
Christ  in  his  sufferings  manifested  the  love  of  God  to  the  fallen  race  of 
man,  and  carried  the  moral  ideal  of  his  life  through  a  series  of  conflicts 
to  its  triumphant  conclusion — and  with  self-denying  labor  completed  the 
work  which  his  heavenly  Father  had  commissioned  him  to  fulfil  on  earth 
— the  Saviour  affirms  in  reference  to  these  his  impending  sufferings,  that 
he  had,  in  determination  of  will,  already  fulfilled  them,  xiii.  31;"  now  is 
the  Son  of  Man  -glorified,  and  God  is  glorified  in  him."  He  speaks  of  his 
sufferings  as  the  completion  of  his  life  devoted  to  God  as  a  sacrifice,  xvii. 
19 ;  that  he  thus  devoted  himself  to  God,  or  presented  himself  as  a  sacri- 
fice for  his  disciples,  that  they  also  might  be  consecrated  or  sanctified  in 
the  truth.  The  realization  of  the  ideal  of  holiness  in  Christ's  life  and 
sufferings,  is  here  represented  as  the  ground  of  the  sanctification  of  the 
human  race.  Had  he  not  himself  realized  this  ideal,  he  could  not  have 
furnished  this  principle  of  sanctification  for  all  mankind  ;  but  this  prin- 
ciple of  holiness  for  the  whole  life  of  humanity  can  each  one  receive  for 
himself  only  by  entering  into  communion  with  him,  and  by  appropriating 
the  truth  which  he  announced.  In  John's  writings,  as  in  Paul's,  we  find 
the  underlying  idea  of  Christ's  bearing  the  punishment  of  sin  for  man- 
kind, and  the  reconciliation  of  mankind  with  God  through  him,  though 
this  idea  is  not  so  expressly  developed  ;  but,  in  accordance  with  his 
method,  the  idea  of  Christ  as  the  dispenser  of  divine  life,  and  the  founder 
of  a  communion  in  that  life,  is  made,  for  the  most  part,  the  predominant 
one.  Thus  John  the  Baptist  compares  him,  as  innocent  and  full  of 
heavenly  mildness  and  patience  under  sufferings,  to  a  Lamb,  on  whom 
the  punishment  of  sin  and  the  guilt  of  mankind  are  (as  it  were)  laid  and 
thus  carried  away  ;*  and  the  apostle  himself  thus  designates  him  in  his 
first  epistle,  the  sin-offering,  the  IXaofibg  for  sin.  And  when  Christ  had 
been  declaring  that  divine  life  would  be  attained  only  in  communion  with 
him,  that  as  the  bread  of  heaven  he  was  the  same  for  the  spiritual  life  of 
man  which  material  bread  is  for  the  bodily  life;  he  adds,  (vi.  51),  that 
the  bread f  which  he  will  give  is  his  body,J  which  he  will  give  for  the 
life  of  the  world,  he  then  repeats  the  same  idea  though  under  a  different 
form,  and  describes  how  he  must  be  received  in  his  whole  nature, Divine 
and  human.  We  are  therefore  led  to  believe,  that  between  these  two 
views,  of  which  one  relates  in  general  to  the  whole  being  of  Christ,  and 
the  other  to  his  offering  up  himself  for  the  salvation  of  men,  an  internal 
connexion  must  exist.  The  communication  of  divine  life  by  the  Re- 
deemer,— all  that  his  divine  life  could  effect  for  mankind,  depended  on 

*  "We  have  not  entered  into  the  controversy  respecting  the  sense  in  which  the  Baptist 
originally  used  these  words,  since  it  is  here  only  of  importance  to  determine  the  ideas  of 
the  apostle  John  on  the'subject. 

•f  This  is  not  exactly  the  same  as  his  calling  himself,  in  his  whole  being  and  appearance, 
the  Bread  of  Life. 

X  To  justify  this  interpretation,  I  refer  to  Liicke's  commentary  on  these  words. 


518  necessity  or  chkist's  death. 

this,  that  as  he  himself  had  glorified  the  Father  on  earth,  he  would  be 
exalted,  in  that  human  nature  in  which  he  had  so  glorified  him,  above  the 
limits  of  earthly  existence  to  the  fellowship  of  his  Father's  glory ;  that 
he  might  from  that  time,  by  an  invisible  spiritual  agency,  complete 
among  men  the  work  of  which  he  had  laid  the  foundation  during  his 
earthly  sojourn,  that  he  might  now  glorify  him  through  the  development 
of  the  divine  life,  and  the  victorious  progress  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on 
earth,  (xvii.  1-5.)  Christ  himself  points  out  this  necessary  connexion  in 
that  passage  of  John's  Gospel,  where  he  compares  his  life  on  earth  to  a  grain 
of  corn  which  must  first  be  dissolved,  and  lose  its  peculiar  form,  in  order 
that  it  may  not  abide  alone,  but  bring  forth  much  fruit.  The  divine  life 
remained  hidden  in  himself  as  his  own  exclusive  possession  during  his 
sensible  presence  on  earth.  There  was  indeed  a  natural  reason  for  this, 
that  the  apostles,  as  long  as  they  saw  Christ  sensibly  present  among 
them,  and  enjoyed  on  all  occasions  his  outward,  personal  guidance,  were 
dependent  on  his  outward,  personal  superintendence  ;  they  could  not 
raise  themselves  above  his  human  personality  to  the  higher  point  of 
view  of  him  as  the  Son  of  God,  to  an  independent  spiritual  communion 
with  him  apart  from  his  bodily  presence  and  agency,  and  therefore  had 
not  attained  to  the  independent  maturity  of  the  spiritual  life  which  pro- 
ceeded from  the  Redeemer.  Under  these  circumstances,  the  disciples 
could  not  have  been  fitted  for  a  participation  of  the  Redeemer's  life,  if 
his  sensible  presence  had  not  first  been  withdrawn.  But  this  negative, 
the  removal  of  this  hindrance  to  the  higher  influence  of  Christ  on  the 
disciples,  would  not  alone  have  been  sufficient  for  completing  the  divine 
work  in  their  souls,  if  with  the  negative  there  had  not  also  been  connected 
the  advent  of  a  new  positive  power.  His  ascension  to  heaven  was  only  a 
necessary  preparation  for  making  the  disciples  susceptible  of  the  divine 
influences  of  the  glorified  Redeemer.  In  the  firm  consciousness  that  he 
would  be  able  to  operate  with  such  power  on  mankind,  Christ  said,  (John 
xii.  32),  that  when  he  should  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  he  would  draw 
all  men  unto  him.  In  reference  to  this  connexion  of  events,  John  contem- 
plates (vii.  39)  the  communication  of  the  divine  principle  of  life  which 
would  be  made  by  Christ  to  believers,  which  would  pervade  the  charac* 
ter  of  each  individual,  as  well  as  the  life  of  the  collective  body,  and  which 
would  bring  the  Christian  life  to  its  full  vigor  and  maturity, — the  com- 
munication of  the  Holy  Spirit,  rrveviia  dyiov,  a  result  of  the  glorification 
of  Christ,  which  would  not  take  place  till  that  event  was  realized.* 

*  With  respect  to  the  question, — in  what  sense  the  words  in  John  vii.  38  were  origi- 
nally spoken  by  Christ,  they  relate  not  to  one  definite  future  transaction,  but,  as  John  iv. 
14,  to  a  principle  quite  generally  expressed,  that  faith  in  him  would  be  for  any  individual 
a  fountain  of  divine  life,  which  was  represented  under  the  image  of  living  water.  But 
John  was  justified  in  saying,  that  what  Christ  here  spoke  could  not  be  fulfilled  at  that 
time,  since  the  consciousness  of  a  divine  life  received  from  Christ  was  not  yet  developed 
in  believers,  but  would  take  place  at  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  would  produce 
that  consciousness ;  his  language  is  therefore,  in  this  respect,  somewhat  prophetic.     The 


THE   EFFECTS   OF   CHRIST^   GLORIFICATION.  519 

Whatever  is  required  on  the  part  of  men  for  the  appropriation  of 
what  Christ  effected  as  the  Redeemer  of  mankind,  John  includes  in  faith, 
This  is  that  one  work  which  God  requires,  John  vi.  29,  in  contradistinc- 
tion from  the  many  works,  noXXa  epya,  of  Jewish  legal  holiness  ;  and 
from  this  one  internal  work,  this  one  inward  self-determination,  every- 
thing will  spontaneously  follow  which  is  requisite  for  the  sanotification 
of  man.  But  he  distinguishes,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  the  faith 
that  proceeded  from  the  predominance  of  a  sensuous  element,  the  faith 
of  authority,  (which  as  it  arose  more  from  an  impression  on  the  senses 
than  on  the  mind,  easily  gives  place  to  other  sensuous  impressions,  and 
vanishes,)  from  the  faith  which,  as  it  proceeds  from  the  inner  life,  from 
the  deeply  felt  need  of  a  redemption  from  sin,  or  from  an  impression  of 
the  divine  received  into  the  very  depths  of  the  heart,  and  therefore  pene- 
trating deeply  into  the  heart,  produced  the  continuing  in  the  word  of 
God,  the  having  the  word  abiding  in  himself,  fieveiv  ev  to  Xoyot  ^ov  deov, 
txew  rbv  Xoyov  fievovra  ev  eavro).  This  faith  (as  in  Paul)  is  a  direction 
and  acting  of  the  disposition,  by  which  a  man  surrenders  himself  wholly 
to  him  whom  he  acknowledges  as  his  Redeemer,  and  enters  into  com- 
munion with  him.  By  this  faith,  entrance  is  made  into  communion  with 
the  Redeemer,  and  at  the  same  time  a  participation  obtained  in  his  divine 
life.  Whoever  believes  on  him  has  everlasting  life,  has  passed  over  from 
death  unto  life,  is  regenerated  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  who,  instead  of  the 
former  predominant  principle  of  sin,  is  now  the  determining  power  within 
him ;  he  is  awakened  to  a  divine  life',  and  has  become  a  child  of  God. 
From  this  condition  a  new  form  and  a  new  law  of  life  now  spontaneously 
develope  themselves. 

What  John  asserts  respecting  the  relation  of  Christ's  precepts  to 
faith,  readily  harmonizes  with  the  Pauline  view  of  the  relation  of  the  law 
to  faith.  He  speaks,  it  is  true,  of  the  commands  of  the  Lord  in  the 
plural  number,  but  they  are  all  traced  back  to  that  one  which  is  the 
characteristic  of  the  "New  Covenant,"  Kaivrj  SiadrjKn,  the  command  of 
brotherly  love  ;  and  the  novelty  of  this  command  compared  with  the 
commands  of  the  old  law,  is  shown  in  its  enjoining  on  believers  to  love 
as  Christ  loved,  when  he  gave  his  life  for  the  salvation  of  men,  to  exercise 
a  self-sacrificing  brotherly  love  according  to  his  example.  From  this 
reference  to  the  Saviour,  it  is  immediately  evident  that  such  commands 
cannot  be  intended  as   are   prescribed   from   without,  in  addition  to 

New  Testament  ideas  of  "eternal  life,"  fr$  oWwofc  and  of  "the  Holy  Spirit,"  nvexifia 
crcov  are  closely  connected  ;  they  are  related  to  each  other  as  effect  and  cause.  Though 
with  faith  in  Christ  the  impartation  of  a  divine  life  was  granted  to  behevers  potentially 
and  in  principle,  vet  the  effect  was  first  manifested  after  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Sp.r.t. 
From  that  era,  the  divine  life  resulting  from  the  participation  of  the  Divine  Sp.nt  which 
believers  received,  streamed  forth  on  mankind,  and  subsequent  history  furnishes  the  cor- 
rect  interpretation  to  these  words  of  Christ,  and  verifies  their  truth.  John,  therefore, 
gives  aa  historical  commentary  rather  than  a  simple  verbal  explanation. 


520  FAITH    OVERCOMING    THE   WORLD. 

believing,  but  only  those  which  are  spontaneously  developed  from  the 
divine  life,  which  accompany  faith,  as  obligations  necessarily  involved  in 
it,  requirements  of  the  law  of  the  inward  life,  as  so  many  distinct  traits 
in  which  the  image  of  the  life  of  Christ  exhibits  itself  to  believers.  This 
new  command  presupposes  faith  m  the  redeeming,  self-sacrificing  love  of 
Christ,  and  from  the  knowledge  of  this  love  the  impulse  is  awakened  to 
exercise  similar  love  towards  the  brethren;  1  John  Hi.  16;  iv.  10-19. 
John  says,  (l  Ep.  v.  3,)  that  the  commands  of  Christ  are  not  difficult, 
though  they  exhibit  an  ideal  of  holiness  ;  but  he  affirms  this,  not  on  ac- 
count of  their  contents,  but  on  account  of  their  peculiar  relation  to  faith, 
.and  to  the  inward  life  of  believers  ;  because  these  commands  do  not  as 
a  mere  dead  letter  oppose  the,  principle  of  sin  which  rules  in  the  hearts 
of  men,  but  presupposes  the  life-giving  spirit  of  love  which  develops 
itself  from  faith,  since  both  the  inward  impulse  and  the  power  to  fulfil 
them  proceed  from  communion  with  the  Redeemer,  the  new  divine  prin 
ciple  of  life.  John  himself  adduces  as  a  proof  that  these  commands  are 
not  difficult,  this  fact,  that  what  is  born  of  God  receives  power  to  over 
come  all  that  is  undivine,  that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  has  the 
power  of  overcoming  the  world,  that  in  this  faith  is  already  placed  the 
victory  over  the  world  and  all  that  is  undivine  ;  1  John  v.  4  ;  even  as  Paul 
declares  that  a  man  with  this  faith  is  already  practically  dead  to  the 
world.  Christ,  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (xvi.  33),  requires  those  who 
believe  on  him  to  confide  in  his  having  overcome  the  world  (the  whole 
power  of  evil) — to  be  assured  that  through  him  it  had^been  brought  to 
nothing;  believers,  accordingly,  by  virtue  of  their  fellowship  with  him, 
share  in  this  victory,  they  need  no  longer  to  dread  the  power  of  that 
enemy,  and  hence  John  could  term  faith  itself  "  the  victory  that  over' 
cometh  the  world."  But  whoever  keeps  not  Christ's  commands,  proves 
by  his  conduct  that  he  is  destitute  of  that  divine  life  and  communion  with 
Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  in  a  true  sense  believe  on  him.  Whoever 
lives  in  sin,  and  pretends  to  believe  in  Christ  and  to  know  him,  is  in  fact 
very  far  from  knowing  him  or  believing  on  him.  According  to  John's 
conceptions,  it  is  impossible  to  separate  either  faith  or  knowledge  from 
the  life.  Whoever  knows  Christ  can  know  Him  only  as  the  Holy  One 
who  appeared  to  destroy  the  kingdom  of  evil  among  mankind,  and  to 
take  away  sin.  And  whoever  has  known  him  and  believed  in  him  as 
such,  whoever  has  received  the  image  of  such  a  Christ  into  his  inward  life, 
can  no  longer  live  in  the  service  of  sin. 

Very  different  from  this  faith  in  the  real  historical  Christ,  was  the 
superstitious  belief  in  that  phantom  which  men  formed  of  a  Messiah  in 
conformity  with  their  own  evil  inclinations.  An  example  of  the  latter 
kind  of  faith  is  mentioned  by  John  in  his  Gospel,  ii.  23,  where  he  says 
that  many  believed  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  on  account  of  the  miracles 
which  they  saw  him  perform.  But  since  they  were  not  actuated  by  the 
feeling  of  a  higher  necessity,  nor  sought  and  saw  in  Him  a  Saviour  from 
sin — since  they  were  not  susceptible  of  the  spiritual  impression  of  the 


CHILDREN    OF   GOD   AND   OF   AIABOAOZ.  521 

Divine,  but  were  only  touched  by  an  impression  on  the  senses,  only  such 
an  image  of  the  Messiah  could  be  formed  in  their  minds  as  corresponded 
to  a  desire  that  was  composed  of  carnal  elements.  Hence  their  faith,  or 
rather  their  superstition,  when  its  carnal  expectations  were  disappointed, 
was  soon  succeeded  by  unbelief.  Hence  Christ  would  not  surrender 
himself  to  the  enthusiasm  with  which  they  professed  attachment  to  him, 
for  by  his  penetrating  glance  into  the  secret  state  of  their  hearts,  he 
knew  that  they  were  still  far  from  that  faith  which  would  be  capable  of 
fellowship  with  himself.  To  such  a  faith,  which  would  require  to  be 
purified  from  the  alloy  of  the  sensuous  element  by  awakening  the  slum- 
bering religious.sentiment  through  intercourse  with  the  Redeemer,  Christ 
referred  when  he  said  to  the  multitude  who  professed  to  believe  on  him, 
(viii.  31,)  "If  they  now  really  should  receive  into  their  hearts,  and  appro- 
priate that  word  to  which  they  had  hitherto  given  only  a  superficial  accep- 
tance, they  would  thus  become  truly  his  disciples — they  would  know  the 
truth  in  their  inward  life,  and  by  its  power  pervading  their  whole  being, 
would  be  progressively  freed  from  everything  by  which  their  higher  na- 
ture, the  religious  sentiment  implanted  in  their  constitution,  had  been 
held  in  bondage."* 

Though  John  contrasts  the  children  of  God,  those  who  are  born  of 
God,  writh  those  who  belong  to  the  world,  to  the  evil  spirit,  the  children 
of  the  devil,  but  only  in  general  terms  without  any  gradations  ;  yet  in 
the  idea  of  the  former,  he  by  no  means  supposes  an  equally  definite  and 
complete  manifestation  in  every  individual,  and  is  far  from  excluding 
various  degrees  of  development.  He  says,  as  we  have  already  noticed, 
that  faith  involves  victory  over  the  world,  and  that  whoever  believes  in 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  by  the  power  of  this  belief  overcomes  the  world. 
By  virtue  of  the  divine  principle  of  life  which  he  has  received,  tempta- 
tion to  sin  can  find  in  the  believer  no  point  of  connexion,  and  everything 
which  assails  him  from  without,  can  only  contribute  to  promote  the  de- 
velopment of  the  divine  life  in  him,  and  the  victory  of  the  cause  of  Christ, 
which  by  its  nature  is  all-conquering,  and  presses  through  everything 
that  opposes  it  to  completion  ;  1  John  iv.  4.  Whoever  is  born  of  God 
sinneth  not,  but  preserves  himself  from  all  the  allurements  to  sin,  and 
the  evil  one  toucheth  him  not,  (evil  can  find  in  him  no  point  of  con- 
nexion ;  1  John  v.  1 8.)  Because  he  is  born  of  God,  it  is  impossible  for 
him  to  sin  ;  since  the  seed  of  the  divine  life  dwells  within  him,  from  which 

*  In  this  passage,  the  idea  of  freedom  is  presented  under  a  different  aspect  from 
what  we  find  in  Paul's  writings,  not  in  contrariety  to  legal  bondage,  but  to  a  political 
semblance  of  freedom.  True  freedom,  Christ  says,  is  inward,  proceeding  from  redemp- 
tion. Till  man  has  attained  to  this,  he  is  still  in  slavery,  though  enjoying  complete  out- 
ward independence,  since  he  does  not  freely  regulate  himself  according  to  the  law  of  his 
original  and  true  nature,  but  is  controlled  by  a  foreign  principle,  by  which  this  his  original 
and  true  nature  is  oppressed.  But  it  will  easily  be  seen,  that  the  same  general  idea  of 
the  contrariety  between  freedom  and  slavery,  as  in  Paul,  lies  at  the  basis,  and  the  three- 
fold condition  in  the  moral  development  of  man  may  be  readily  deduced  from  it. 


522  CHRISTIAN   PERFECTION. 

nothing  evil,  but  only  good,  can  proceed  ;  1  John  iii.  9.  But  from  thia 
description  we  are  not  to  conclude  that  the  idea  and  its  manifestation  per- 
fectly correspond,  and  that  it  is  intended  to  exhibit  the  Christian  as  sin- 
less. John  presupposes  the  contrary,  since  even  in  Christianity  he  still 
admits  the  need  of  forgiveness,  and  of  progressive  purification  from  sin. 
"  If  we  confess  our  sins" — is  his  language, — that  is,  are  penetrated  by  a 
consciousness  of  the  sin  that  still  cleaves  to  us,  and  are  filled  with  a 
feeling  of  penitence, — "  Cod  is  faithful  and  just*  to  forgive  our  sins,  and 
to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness,"  1  John  i.  9.  We  must,  there- 
fore, take  the  following  view  of  John's  doctrine  :  though  the  Christian 
as  such,  in  reference  to  his  life  founded  on  communion  with  Christ,  can- 
not be  reached  by  sin,  though  his  divine  indwelling  life  cannot  in  itself 
be  touched  by  sin,  yet  as  it  is  engrafted  on  a  sinful  nature  which  is  con- 
tinually opposed  to  it,  it  is  always  subject  to  being  disturbed  by  sin's  in- 
cursions, from  which  it  can  only  be  preserved  by  maintaining  a  constant 
warfare.  The  divine  life,  until  it  has  pervaded  and  appropriated  man's 
whole  nature,  which  can  never  take  place  during  his  earthly  existence, 
must  develop  itself  by  a  continual  process  of  purification ;  to  this  subject 
relates  what  Christ  says  in  the  metaphor  of  the  vine;  John  xv.  Indeed, 
his  disciples  were  already  pure  through  the  word  spoken  by  him,  inas- 
much as  they  had  received  it  as  a  purifying  principle  into  their  souls ;  but 
it  was  needful  for  its  purifying  power  to  be  manifested  by  an  inward, 
thorough  purification  of  their  whole  nature.  As  the  vine-dresser  cuts  off 
from  the  fruit-bearing  branches  of  the  vine  all  the  useless  shoots,  that  it 
may  produce  more  fruit,  so  God  purifies  the  whole  nature  of  man  by  a 
gradual  process  which  develops  itself  from  a  life  in  communion  with  Christ, 
in  order  that  the  fruit-producing  power  of  the  living  sap  received  from  him 
may  not  be  lessened  by  mixing  with  the  foreign  sap  belonging  to  the  Avild 
stock  of  the  old  nature,  but  manifest  itself  in  continually  richer  fruits,  the 
works  of  a  genuine  Christian  disposition. f 

In  this  manner  we  may  easily  explain  the  apparent  contradiction 
in  John's  language,  when  he  says  that  whoever  sinneth  knoweth  not 
Christ,  and  yet  speaks  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  as  needed  by  every 
Christian,  and  ready  to  be  imparted  to  him.     The  life  of  the  believer 

*  Two  ideas  are  here  closely  connected.  The  faithfulness  of  God  consists  in  this,  that 
God  in  his  acts,  in  the  government  of  the  world,  shows  himself  always  self-consistent; 
he  responds  to  the  expectations  which  he  has  awakened  by  his  revelation  in  words,  or  by 
his  providence  in  general  history,  or  by  the  operations  of  his  Spirit  in  the  lives  of  indi- 
viduals, and  fulfils  his  promises;  and  as  he  has  promised  the  forgiveness  of  sins  to  those 
who  confess  them,  he  bestows  that  blessing.  His  justice  is  shown  by  his  fulfilling  the 
laws  which  he  established  for  his  own  kingdom  ;  he  gives  to  every  one  what  belongs  to 
him  according  to  these  laws;  and  thus  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  granted,  whenever  the 
condition  is  fulfilled  on  which  it  was  promised. 

f  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  good  works  as  fruits  of  faith,  and  also  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  charismsas  the  fruits  of  human  nature  when  pervaded  and  purified  by  the  divine  prin- 
ciple of  life,  find  here  their  point  of  connexion. 


PAUL   AXD   JOHN.  523 

is  distinguished  from  the  life  of  the  natural  man  by  this,  that  it 
is  animated,  not  by  the  principle  of  sin,  but  of  the  divine  life,  and 
hence  what  is  sinful  appears  only  as  something  that  belonged  to  his 
former  condition,  but  still  cleaves  to  him,  and  is  therefore  always 
opposed  by  him.  Accordingly,  John  represents  these  two  states  and 
tendencies  of  life  as  totally  irreconcilable ;  walking  in  the  light  is  a 
life  devoted  to  God  by  its  prevailing  tendency ;  and  to  walk  in  dark 
ness  is  a  life  devoted  to  sinful  inclinations,  and  proceeding  from 
sinful  tendency*  We  here  may  observe  the  unity  of  John's  doctrine 
with  that  of  Paul.  As  Paul  represents  faith,  in  its  idea  and  principle, 
as  an  act  by  which  a  man  dies  to  himself,  the  world,  and  sin — but 
yet,  in  the  new  life  developed  by  its  practical  operation,  infers  a  con- 
tinual mortifying  of  the  sinful  principle ;  so  likewise  in  John  we  find 
the  same  relation  exhibited  between  being  born  of  God,  and  maintain- 
ing a  conflict  with  the  world  and  sin.  The  distinction  which  is  founded 
on  these  views  between  the  objective  of  redemption  apprehended  by 
faith,  and  the  progressive  subjective  development  of  the  divine  life, 
leads  to  the  Pauline  conceptions  of  "  righteousness,"  diKaioovvr],  and  of 
"  justification,"  dmaiojoig.  John  also  contemplates  the  perfectly  Holy 
Jesus  objectively  as  the  intercessor  with  the  Father  for  believers  who 
are  still  burdened  with  sin. 

As,  according  to  John's  ideas,  the  future  is  already  apprehended 
by  faith  as  present,  so  the  divine  life  in  the  present  is  viewed  as  the 
commencing  point  and  germ  of  a  creation  that  embraces  eternity.  As 
an  anticipation  of  the  future  thus  exists  in  the  present,  there  is  a 
necessary  reference  to  a  future  development  and  consummation.    Who- 

*  It  is  the  object  of  the  First  Epi6tle  of  John  to  counteract  the  false  confidence  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  the  error  that  a  man  continuing  in  sin  can  be  a  partaker  of  forgive- 
ness; a  Christian  sympathizing  love  towards  erring  brethren  at  the  same  time  not  being 
excluded.  By  these  brethren,  who  have  a  claim  on  Christian  sympathy,  he  understands 
those  who,  though  in  general  they  had  evinced  an  earnest  desire  for  sanctification,  had 
yielded  to  some  sudden  temptation.  It  is  true  he  considers  all  sin  as  standing  in  contra- 
diction to  the  divine  life,  to  the  farj ;  but  stiU  a  transient  decline  of  this  higher  life,  which 
has  already  become  predominant  over  the  sinful  principle,  is  to  be  distinguished  from  an 
absolute  suppression  or  entire  destitution  of  it.  The  apostle  here  refers  to  such  a  mo- 
mentary decline  as  results  from  yielding  to  temptation.  It  is  the  Christian's  duty  to 
pray  for  such  fallen  brethren,  and  it  may  be  expected  that  God  will  revive  them  again, 
since  it  is  presupposed  that  the  persons  who  are  the  objects  of  this  intercession,  have 
still  within  them  the  germ  of  the  Christian  life,  and  are  in  a  state  susceptible  of  such  a 
divine  operation.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  John,  in  describing  the  acts  that  proceed  from 
such  a  sinful  state,  which  is  marked  by  a  total  destitution  of  the  divine  life,  a  continued 
spiritual  death,  employs  the  phrase  sins  unto  death,  ufiapriat  -rrpiic  6dvamv.  To  such  cases 
the  intercessory  prayers  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  could  not  relate,  since  the  persons  in 
question  did  not  belong  to  the  Christian  community.  But  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
believers  were  not  to  pray  for  their  conversion ;  only  they  were  not  to  consider  them  as 
Christian  brethren,  and  pray  for  them  in  that  sense  in  which  those  who  were  conscious 
of  sin  still  cleaving  to  them,  prayed  for  one  another.  Lucke,  in  hie  excellent  commentary 
%grees  with  this  view  of  the  subject. 


524  THE   INWARD   LIFE. 

ever  believes  in  the  Redeemer  (John  declares)  hath  eternal  life — he 
has  passed  from  death  unto  life — he  can  die  no  more — he  can  no  more 
experience  death.  The  divine  life  which  he  has  received,  can  no  more 
be  interrupted  by  death.  During  his  earthly  existence  there  is  the 
beginning  of  the  development  of  this  divine  life  ;  it  is  a  fountain  which 
springs  up  to  everlasting  life,  which  continues  to  flow  onward  till  it 
enters  the  ocean  of  eternity,  John  iv.  14.  Believers  have  the  firm 
consciousness  that  they  are  the  children  of  God,  1  John  iii.  2,  and 
that  they  shall  attain  to  the  full  possession  of  all  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges founded  on  this  relation;  but  the  full  understanding  of  what 
belongs  to  the  realization  of  this  idea  is  not  yet  granted  to  them — 
the  dignity  of  the  children  of  God  in  all  its  extent  can  be  known 
only  by  its  actual  manifestation.  But  as  in  divine  things  knowledge 
and  life  are  inseparably  united,  the  perfect  knowledge  of  Christ  and 
God  will  accompany  the  perfect  formation  of  the  life  in  their  image ; 
1  John  iii.  2.  Thus  the  same  connexion  between  the  fife  of  faith  and 
of  hope  is  here  exhibited  as  in  Paul's  writings. 

But  it  is  a  characteristic  of  John's  views,  that  a  reference  to  com- 
munion with  the  Redeemer  in  the  inward  life  and  in  the  present,  pre- 
dominates over  the  reference  to  the  future  and  to  outward  facts  ;  he 
dwells  upon  the  elements  of  the  inner  life,  the  facts  of  Christian  con- 
sciousness, and  only  slightly  adverts  to  outward  matters  of  fact,  and  what 
relates  to  the  Church.  In  accordance  with  this  spirit,  he  exhibits  all  the 
particular  incidents  in  the  outward  history  of  Christ  only  as  manifesta- 
tions of  his  indwelling  glory,  by  which  this  may  be  brought  home  to  the 
heart ;  he  always  avails  himself  of  these  narratives,  to  introduce  what  the 
Redeemer  declared  respecting  his  relation  to  mankind  as  the  source  of 
divine  life.  John  is  the  representative  of  the  truth  which  lies  at  the  basis 
of  that  tendency  of  the  Christian  spirit,  which  sets  itself  in  opposition  to 
a  one-sided  intellectualism  and  ecclesiastical  formality,  and  is  dis- 
tinguished by  the  name  of  Mysticism. 

The  same  peculiarity  marks  his  representations  of  the  Judgment  and 
of  the  Resurrection.  The  judgment  he  considers  as  something  present, 
as  a  fact  inseparable  from  the  redemption  of  mankind  and  the  publication 
of  the  gospel. 

There  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  a  separation  between  those 
who  with  susceptible  minds  receive  the  divine,  and  those  who  exclude 
themselves  by  their  unsusceptibility ;  those  who,  with  a  sense  of  their 
spiritual  necessities,  receive  the  offered  redemption — whether  a  longing 
and  striving  after  the  divine  life  had  already  developed  itself  in  their 
higher  nature,  or  that  the  suppressed  religious  consciousness  and  this 
longing  had  been  awakened  through  intercourse  with  the  Redeemer  ; 
and  those  who,  either  by  the  predominance  of  the  sensual  element,  or  by 
spiritual  pride  and  confidence  in  a  legal  righteousness,  were  prevented 
from  attaining  a  knowledge  of  their  need  of  redemption,  and  from  surren- 
dering themselves  to  the  impression  of  the  divine  in  the  appearance,  words, 


JUDGMENT   AND   SALVATION.  525 

and  works  of  the  Redeemer.  John  always  considers  judgment  as  merely 
the  opposite  of  salvation,  of  aurrjpia  ;  for  the  judgment  of  a  Holy  God 
is  such  that  no  man  can  appear  before  it  as  guiltless.  The  ideas  of  the 
judgment  of  God  and  condemnation  must  coalesce  in  their  application  to 
man  estranged  from  God  by  sin.  But  the  revelation  of  God's  love  in  re- 
demption appears  as  a  deliverance  from  the  condemnatory  judgment,  and 
nothing  more  is  required  than  the  acceptance  of  the  offered  mercy 
through  faith  in  the  Redeemer.  He  who  will  not  believe,  owing  to  his 
predominant  sinful  tendency,  excludes  himself  from  the  offered  salvation, 
and  the  judgment  that  he  pronounces  against  himself  is  founded  on  the 
unbelief  which  proceeds  from  the  state  of  his  interior  disposition ;  John 
iii.  17.  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world  (that  is,  caused  him  to  appear 
among  the  mass  of  mankind  hitherto  estranged  from  God) — not  to  con- 
demn the  world — (as  the  Jews  imagined  that  he  would  pass  sentence  on 
the  Gentile  world),  but  that  mankind,  who  were  under  the  dominion  of 
sin  and  estranged  from  God,  might  be  rescued  through  him  from  impend- 
ing ruin.  Whoever  now  believes  on  him,  is  not  condemned  ;  he  has  ap- 
propriated salvation  by  faith,  and  such  a  one,  being  certain  of  eternal  life 
in  communion  with  the  Redeemer,  need  no  longer  dread  condemnation. 
But  whoever  does  not  believe  on  him  is  already,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  con- 
demned by  his  own  unbelief.  In  this  consists  the  judgment,  that  men 
from  their  love  of  darkness  (of  ungodliness),  on  account  of  the  sinful  ten- 
dency of  their  life,  are  not  willing  to  admit  the  fountain  of  light,  (this 
their  conduct  towards  the  divine,  as  it  proceeds  from  their  disposition,  is 
in  fact  judgment).  As  the  gospel  cannot  reveal  its  power  for  the  salva- 
tion of  men  without  this  process  of  separation  taking  place,  which  John 
calls  judgment,  the  object  of  Christ's  appearance  must  include  with  the 
redemption  of  the  susceptible,  their  separation  from  the  unsusceptible. 
« For  judgment"  said  Christ,  "I  am  come  into  the  world,  that  they  who 
see  not"*  that  is,  those  who  see  not,  but  are  at  the  same  time  conscious 
of  their  not  seeing,  and  are  actuated  by  a  sense  of  their  need  of  illumina- 
tion, "may  obtain  their  sight"  may  be  cured  of  their  blindness  in  respect 
to  divine  things ;  "  but  that  they  toho  see"  who  have  the  means  granted 
them  of  knowing  the  truth,  but  who  are  not  disposed  to  know  it,  and 
who  are  prevented  from  humbling  themselves  before  the  true  light  by 
the  self-conceit  of  their  imaginary  discernment,  and  though  they  have 
eyes  to  see,  they  see  not,  "  may  be  given  up  to  their  blindness  ;"  John 
ix.  39,  40.f  To  such  a  moral  judgment  connected  with  the  publication 
of  the  gospel  we  must  refer  what  Paul  says  of  the  publication  of  the 
gospel,  that  to  some  it  is  the  savor  of  life  unto  life,  and  to  others  the 

*  Not  without  reason  is  the  subjective  particle  of  negation,  fir},  here  used. 

\  As  in  the  instance  which  gave  occasion  to  this  whole  discourse,  the  blind  man  was 
made  to  see  by  the  Redeemer,  and  as  one  spiritually  blind,  who  supposed  that  he  could 
not  see,  he  was  healed  of  his  spiritual  blindness  and  enlightened ;  while,  on  the  contrary 
the  deluded  Pharisees  showed  that,  having  eyes  to  see,  they  were  blind,  since,  in  spite  of 
facts,  they  denied  the  truth. 


526  JUDGMENT   AND   SALVATION. 

savor  of  death  unt  >  death;  2  Cor.  ii.  16.  But  the  idea  of  this  progres- 
sive moral  judgment  through  history,  as  well  as  the  idea  of  the  continued 
spiritual  awakening  of  mankind  by  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  by  no 
means  excludes  a  final  judgment  and  a  universal  resurrection ;  but  the 
former  appears  as  a  symbol  and  preparative  of  the  latter,  and  the  con- 
nexion of  the  two  is  exhibited  in  Christ's  discourse  in  the  5th  chapter  of 
John's  Gospel.  At  first,  Christ  speaks  of  the  power  conferred  upon  him 
as  the  Messiah  to  awaken  the  spiritually  dead,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
judge  them  according  to  their  respective  conduct  towards  the  divine  life 
that  was  offered  for  their  acceptance.  As  the  Father  awakens  and  makes 
alive  the  dead,  so  also  the  Son  gives  life  to  (awakens  to  a  true  divine  life) 
whom  he  will  ;*  for  the  Father  has  committed  to  him  all  the  power  of  judg- 
ment, that  all  may  show  their  reverence  for  the  Father,  by  the  manner  in 
which  they  reverence  the  Son.  He  who  honoreth  not  the  Son,  honoreth 
not  the  Father  who  sent  him.f  "He  who  receiveth  my  word  and  believeth 
on  him  who  sent  me,"  continued  Christ,  corroborating  his  former  declara- 
tion, "  hath  everlasting  life,  and  cannot  come  into  condemnation,  but  ia 
passed  over  from  death  unto  life."  By  participation  in  a  divine  life,  he 
is  already  removed  beyond  the  reach  of  judgment,  which  can  only  affect 
those  who  are  estranged  from  God.  "  A  time  is  coming,  and  already  is" 
(inasmuch  as  Christ  by  the  power  of  his  words  had  already  produced  such 
effects),  "  when  the  dead"  (the  spiritually  dead  in  the  whole  race)  "  will 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God"  (by  the  publication  of  the  gospel),  "and 
those  who  hear,  shall  live  ;  for  as  the  Father  hath  the  fountain  of  life  in 
himself,  he  has  also  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself;"  (only  be- 
cause the  eternal,  original  fountain  of  divine  life  in  the  Son  has  communi- 
cated itself  to  mankind,  can  divine  life  be  imparted  to  the  dead  through 
him  ;)  "  and  he  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute  judgment  also,  be- 
cause he  is  Son  of  Man."  As  man  he  came  to  impart  divine  life  to  men  ; 
and  thus  as  man  to  administer  judgment  to  men.  Then  Christ  passes  on 
from  the  present  to  the  future,  from  the  process  of  development  among 
mankind,  to  the  last  decisive  result,  and  says,  "  Marvel  not  at  this  /  fur 
the  hour  is  coming  in  which  all  who  are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  his 
voice  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  who  have  done  good  to  the  resurrection 
of  life,  and  they  who  have  done  evil  to  the  resurrection  of  condemna- 
tion ;"  John  v.  28,  29. 

It  is  owing  to  the  same  peculiarity  which  characterises  John  as  the 
author  of  the  /Spiritual  Gospel,  evayyeXiov  Trvevnannbv,  that  in  the  last 
conversation  of  Christ  with  his  disciples,  he  does  not  mention  what  re- 
lates to  his  resurrection,  his  return  to  inflict  judgments  on  the  reprobate 

*  This  was  intended  to  point  out  to  the  Jews,  that  everything  depended  on  the  man- 
ner  in  which  they  conducted  themselves  towards  him  ;  and  that  the  communication  of 
the  divine  life  was  not  to  be  confined  within  the  limits  which,  from  their  national,  theo- 
cratic conceptions,  they  wished  to  assign  to  it. 

f  In  this  consists  the  judgment,  that  every  man  proves  by  his  conduct  towards  the  Son 
what  his  feelings  are  toward  the  Father. 


PROMISE    OF   THE   TTOLY   SPIRIT.  527 

city  of  God,  and  his  coming  to  the  final  judgment  and  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  church,  but  only  the  promises  of  an  inward  revelation  of  his 
Spirit  to  his  disciples,  that  after  his  bodily  presence  was  withdrawn  from 
them,  and  when  they  might  suppose  that  they  were  altogether  separated 
from  him,  he  would  reveal  himself  to  them  in  a  more  glorious  manner, 
and  receive  them  into  his  communion  never  again  to  be  separated  from 
them.  The  bodily  reappearance  of  Christ  among  his  disciples  appears, 
in  this  connexion,  only  as  of  preparatory  importance  for  continued  spirit- 
ual communion  with  them,  his  constant  spiritual  self-revelation  among 
them ;  so  this  reappearance  of  Christ  for  the  religious  development  of 
the  apostle*,  and  the  development  of  the  church  in  general,  was  only  of 
such  preparatory  importance,  and  intended  to  form  a  transition-point. 
Thus  in  these  promises  contained  in  John's  Gospel,  the  reappearance  of 
the  risen  Saviour  is  certainly  presupposed,  although  the  fact  is  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned.  It  lies  at  the  basis  of  these  promises,  though  they  do 
not  distinctly  refer  to  it.  And  in  this  respect  it  amounts  to  the  same 
thing,  whether  we  admit  one  such  reappearance  of  Christ  after  his  resur- 
rection, or  several  of  the  kind.* 

In  order  gradually  to  prepare  their  minds,  he  begins  with  assuring 
them  that  the  Father  would  give  them,  instead  of  his  own  sensible  pre- 
sence among  them,  another  helper  to  abide  with  them  for  ever, — the 
Spirit  of  truth,  who  alone  could  impart  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth 
announced  by  himself,  and  who  would  communicate  himself  through  this 
truth,  as  he  says  (John  xvi.  14,)  that  his  Spirit  would  glorify  him,  for  he 
would  open  to  them  the  meaning  of  the  doctrine  he  had  taught.  But 
since  this  Spirit  is  no  other  than  the  divine  life  communicated  by  Christ, 
the  indwelling  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  believers  accomplished  by  him, 
he  afterwards  transfers  what  he  had  said  to  them  of  the  coming  of  this 
Spirit,  to  his  own  coming  to  them  in  spirit.  He  points  them  to  the  great 
day,  on  which  he  would  see  them  again  in  spirit,  when  the  transient  pain 
of  separation  from  him  would  be  succeeded  by  the  everlasting  joy  of 
seeing  him  again  and  communing  with  him ;  when  they  would  need  no 
more  to  ask  him  questions,  but  he  would  speak  to  them  concerning  the 
Father  openly  and  without  reserve.  But  though  John  dwells  at  length 
on  the  spiritual  element  and  on  what  relates  to  the  revelation  of  Christ 
in  the  self-consciousness  of  the  disciples,  he  by  no  means  excludes  his 
bodily  resurrection  and  his  own  prediction  of  it ;  John  x.  18.  And  thus 
from  this  scheme  of  doctrine  it  cannot  be  concluded,  that  John  had  not 
learned  from  the  discourses  of  Christ  the  doctrine  of  Ids  personal  coming 
(Trapovaia)  to  judgment  and  for  the  consummation  of  his  church.  The 
contrary  rather  follows  from  what  we  have  already  remarked  respecting 
the  connexion  in  John's  views  of  the  judgment  and  the  resurrection,  ac- 

*  But  we  have  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  429,  430,  proved  the  opinion  to  be  unfounded, 
that  according  to  John's  Gospel,  only  one  such  reappearance  of  Christ  immediately  fol- 
lowed his  resurrection,  and  that  the  other  reappearances  of  Christ  tock  place  after  his 
ascension  to  heaven. 


528  JOHN'S  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

cording  to  two  distinct  modes  of  apprehending  them.  And  what  John 
says  in  his  First  Epistle  of  the  signs  of  the  last  time,  the  marks  of  an  im- 
pending manifestation  of  an  opposition  to  Christianity,  points  to  the  same 
fundamental  ideas  respecting  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
as  those  that  occur  in  Paul's  epistles.  There  are  not  wanting  also  some 
intimations  of  an  approaching  personal  napovaia  of  Christ,  (1  John  ii. 
28,  iii.  2,)  though  the  peculiarity  of  John's  character  is  shown  by  his  only 
giving  slight  hints  on  the  subject,  and  not,  like  Paul,  a  formal  delineation 
of  it. 

It  belongs  also  to  this  peculiar  tendency  of  John's  mind,  that  Christ 
is  not  represented  by  him  as  the  founder  of  a  Church  ;  even  the  idea  of 
an  ennXwola  is  not  distinctly  brought  forward,  though  its  existence  is 
implied,  3  John,  6.  But  what  constitutes  the  essence  of  the  idea  of  a 
church,  the  idea  of  a  communion  of  hearts  founded  in  faith  on  the  Re- 
deemer, of  the  communion  of  believers  with  one  another  and  with  the 
Redeemer,  a  communion  of  faith  and  love,  was  expressed  by  him  most 
emphatically — for  this  idea  would  necessarily  proceed  from  that  which 
was  the  soul  of  his  whole  life,  the  consciousness  of  communion  with  the 
Redeemer,  and  of  the  divine  life  received  from  him. 

Thus  we  find  in  John's  Gospel  a  reference  to  a  religious  community, 
to  be  formed  out  of  all  others  among  mankind,  which  would  listen  to  the 
voice  of  the  Redeemer,  the  "  one  fold  under  one  Shepherd,"  a  communion 
which  would  be  founded  on  the  equal  relation  of  all  to  Christ  the  com- 
mon head,  and  corresponds  to  the  Pauline  idea  of  one  body  under  one 
head,  John  x.  1 6.  As  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one,  so  are  believers, 
since  through  him  they  are  one  with  the  Father,  by  virtue  of  their  mu- 
tual participation  in  the  divine  life.  Thus  they  form  a  union  to  which  no 
other  in  the  world  is  comparable,  and  the  glory  of  Christ  reveals  itself 
among  them.  They  constitute  before  the  eyes  of  the  world  a  living  tes- 
timony to  the  divine  call  and  work  of  Christ.  The  communion  of  the 
divine  life  thus  manifested,  points  to  its  divine  origin,  John  xvii.  21. 
John  also  distinguishes  between  an  inward  community — the  assemblage 
of  those  who  stand  in  communion  with  the  Redeemer,  and  which  em- 
braces the  whole  development  of  the  divine  life  among  mankind — and  an 
outward  community  of  believers,  which  it  is  possible  for  those  to  join  who 
have  no  part  in  the  former.  Thus  in  1  John  ii.  ]  9,  he  speaks  of  those 
who  went  out  from  the  believers,  but  in  fact  (as  far  as  it  regarded  their 
principles  and  disposition)  never  belonged  to  them,  for  had  they  really 
belonged  to  them  in  their  inward  life,  they  would  not  afterwards  have 
renounced  their  society.  But  by  this  outwardly  expressed  renunciation, 
by  their  open  opposition  to  the  community  of  believers,  it  now  became 
manifest  that  not  all  who  were  outwardly  joined  to  that  community 
shared  in  its  essential  qualities,  and  inwardly  belonged  to  it.  We  find 
here,  as  in  Paul's  writings,  the  implied  distinction  of  the  visible  and  the 
invisible  church. 

John  does  not  mention  in  his  Gospel  the  institution  of  Baptism  by 


the  lord's  supper.  529 

Christ,  but  he  treats  at  length  of  that  which  forms  the  idea,  the  spiritual 
element  of  baptism — for  to  this  the  conversation  between  Christ  and 
Nicodemus  relates — that  moral  transformation  by  a  new  divine  principle 
of  life,  in  opposition  to  the  old  sinful  nature  of  man,  without  which  no 
one  can  become  a  member  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  that  is,  of  the  invisi- 
ble church.* 

And  this  also  applies  to  the  Holy  Supper.  For  as  what  Christ  in 
his  conversation  with  Nicodemus  designated  by  the  name  of  regenera- 
tion, has  a  relation  to  Baptism,  so  what  he  represents  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  John,  under  the  image  of  "eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his 
blood,"  bears  a  similar  relation  to  the  Supper.  Christ  had  described 
himself  as  the  true  manna,  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  the  bread  which 
is  not  of  an  earthly,  perishable  nature,  with  only  an  earthly  power  to  re- 
cruit the  bodily  life,  but  which  is  of  divine  origin  and  nature,  capable  of 
imparting  divine  life,  and  of  satisfying  the  wants  of  the  inner  man  for  an 
eternal  duration.  He  describes  himself  as  having  come  down  from  heaven, 
in  reference  to  his  whole  being,  in  order  to  impart  divine  life  to  mankind, 
so  that  every  one  can  only  by  communion  with  the  divine  fountain  of  life 
thus  appearing  in  human  nature,  attain  to  a  participation  of  a  divine  life. 
From  stating  what  he  is  to  mankind  in  his  whole  divine  and  human  na- 
ture, Christ  goes  on  to  declare  what  he  will  give  to  mankind  for  their 
salvation,  (corresponding  to  the  bestowment  of  the  manna  which  was 
sought  for  from  him) — the  surrender  of  his  flesh  (his  life  belonging  to 
the  sensuous  world)  for  the  salvation  of  mankind.  And  since  his  words 
were  so  misunderstood  by  the  Jews,  as  if  he  had  spoken  of  eating  his 
flesh  in  a  literal  sense,  he  took  occasion  to  express  what  he  had  before 
said  of  himself  as  the  bread  of  life,  in  even  stronger  terms,  under  an 
image  still  more  striking,  and  marking  the  idea  still  more  accurately ;  he 
represented  the  eating  of  his  flesh  and  the  drinking  of  his  blood  as  a  ne- 
cessary means  for  the  appropriation  of  eternal  life.  This  eating  of  his 
flesh  and  drinking  of  his  blood  he  considers  equivalent  to  the  life  of  men, 
by  which  the  fountain  of  divine  life  itself  enters  into  mankind,  makes 
them  entirely  its  own,  as  if  men  had  converted  into  their  own  substance 
the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  incarnate  Logos.  He  here  speaks  of  the  par- 
ticipation of  divine  life  by  means  of  his  appearance  in  humanity,  of  the 
impartation  of  divine  life  depending  upon  and  accomplished  by  the  his- 
torical Christ,  while  he  guards  himself  against  being  supposed  to  speak 
of  his  body  in  a  literal  sense,  by  saying,,  as  a  key  for  the  right  interpre- 
tation of  his  words,  "The  spirit  giveth  life — the  flesh  prqfiteth  nothing  y" 
therefore,  he  could  not  have  intended  to  say,  that  men  should  make  use 
of  his  flesh  as  an  object  of  sense,  for,  like  all  flesh,  it  could  not  profit  the 

*  On  any  supposition,  the  mention  of  "water"  in  John  iii.  5,  is  only  of  secondary  im- 
portance, in  order,  by  referring  to  a  symbol  familiar  to  Nicodemus,  to  render  palpable  to 
his  mind  that  all-purifyiug  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit  which  was  needful  for  every  man. 
Hence,  in  the  subsequent  part  of  his  discourse,  Christ  mentions  only  being  "  bom  of  the 
Spirit." 


630  CHRISTIAN   THEISM. 

inner  man,  but  that  by  means  of  his  appearing  in  the  flesh  in  the  world 
of  sense,  they  should  appropriate  his  spirit  as  the  life-giving  principle. 
"  The  words  that  I  say  unto  you,  are  spirit  and  life;"  they  cannot  be 
rightly  understood  according  to  their  mere  sound,  their  literal  expression, 
but  only  according  to  their  contents,  which  are  spirit  and  life,  possessing 
a  divine  vitality.*  Therefore,  the  symbol,  "  eating  the  flesh  and  drink- 
ing the  blood  of  Christ,"  relates  to  the  process  of  imbuing  the  whole  na- 
ture of  every  one  who  is  received  by  faith  into  his  communion,  with 
the  divine  principle  of  life,  which,  through  him,  has  become  a  human 
principle  in  all  who  stand  in  communion  with  him ;  the  constant  hu- 
manizing of  the  divine  in  which  continued  appropriation  and  imbuing,  the 
whole  development  of  the  Christian  life  consists.  As  regeneration,  the 
commencing  point  in  the  Christian  life,  is  represented  by  baptism,  so  is 
this,  the  sequel  of  regeneration,  the  continual  re-birth  (as  it  were)  of  man 
to  the  divine,  the  continued  incorporation  of  mankind  into  the  body  of 
Christ,  represented  by  the  Supper.  Thus  John  and  Paulf  agree,  and  on 
this  subject  complete  each  other's  views. 

The  essence  of  Christianity,  according  to  John,  is  comprised  in  this, 
that  the  Father  is  known  only  in  the  Son,  and  only  through  the  Son  can 
man  come  into  communion  with  the  Father  ;  1  John  ii.  23 ;  2  John  9. 
But  no  one  can  be  in  communion  with  the  Son  without  partaking  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  whom  he  bestows  in  order  to  renew  human  nature  in  his  own 
image,  1  John  iii.  24.  Both  John  and  Paul  place  the  essence  of  Christian 
theism  in  worshipping  God  as  the  Father  through  the  Son,  in  the  commu- 
nion of  the  divine  life  which  he  has  established,  or  in  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Father  through  the  Son  dwelling  in  mankind,  ani- 
mated by  his  Spirit,  agreeably  to  the  triad  of  the  Pauline  benediction, — ■ 
the  love  of  God,  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  (2  Cor.  xiii.  13) ;  and  this  is  the  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  the  connexion  of  Christian  experience.  It  has  an  essentially  practical 
and  historical  significance  and  foundation  ;  it  is  the  doctrine  of  God  re- 
vealed in  humanity,  which  teaches  men  to  recognise  in  God  not  only  the 
original  source  of  existence,  but  also  of  salvation  and  sanctification.  From 
this  Trinity  of  revelation,  as  far  as  the  divine  causality  images  itself  in  the 
oame,  the  reflective  mind,  according  to  the  analogy  of  its  own  being,  pur- 
suing this  track,  seeks  to  elevate  itself  to  the  idea  of  an  original  triad  in 
God,  availing  itself  of  the  intimations  which  are  contained  in  John's  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos,  and  the  cognate  elements  of  the  Pauline  theology. 

As,  accordingly,  James  and  Peter  mark  the  gradual  transition  from 

*  "We  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think  that  Christ  has  here  given  the  interpretation 
of  his  own  words,  and  that  he  wished  to  say  that,  by  his  flesh  and  blood,  nothing  more 
was  to  be  understood  than  his  doctrine  in  reference  to  divine  life-giving  power.  By 
"flesh,"  crop?,  and  "  blood,"  alpa,  he  certainly  meant,  according  to  what  has  been  said,  mor 
tnan  his  "  words,"  j>rjfiara.  These  words  of  Christ  contain  only  the  canon  of  correct  inter 
pretation,  and  leave  the  application  to  each  one  for  himself! 

f  See  page  452. 


DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CHUKCH.  531 

spiritualized  Judaism  to  the  independent  development  of  Christianity,  and 
as  Paul  represents  the  independent  development  of  Christianity  in  oppo- 
sition to  Jewish  conceptions,  so  the  reconciling  contemplative  element  of 
John  forms  the  closing-point  in  the  training  of  the  apostolic  church,  and 
now,  from  the  classical  era  of  original  Christianity,  we  must  trace  a  new 
tedious  development  of  the  church,  striving  towards  its  destiaed  goal 
through  manifold  trials,  oppositions,  and  conflicts.  Perhaps  this  greater 
process  of  development  is  destined  to  proceed  according  to  the  same 
laws  which  we  find  prefigured  in  the  fundamental  forms  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  in  their  relation  to  one  another  and  in  the  order  of  their  de- 
velopment. 


INDEXES. 


I. 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  QUOTED  OE,  EXPLAINED. 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 


PAGE 

Ch.  vi.2 460 

xii.  3 40 

XV.  6 419,499 

xviii.  18 40 

xxii.  18 40 

EXODUS. 

xii.2 8 

xix.l 8 

xxiv 363 


NUMBERS. 

PAGE 

Ch.vi 283 

DEUTERONOMY. 

iv.  19 98 

xviii.  15,  18 40 

xxx.  12 422 

PSALMS. 

xviii.  5,  6 19 

lxviii.  18 304 

cxviii.  22 42 


ISAIAH. 

PAOl 

Ch.ix.  6 462 

xL  2 17 

lxvi  1  ff 55 

JOEL. 

UL1-5 19 

HABAKKUK. 
ii.4 499 


NEW  TESTAMENT. 


MATTHEW. 

PAGE 

Ch.L25 323 

iii.  11 374 

iv.22 355 

v.3f. 407 

v.  17 383,  505 

vi.  22,  23 407 

ix.  13 406 

x.  10 178 

xi.  27 461 

xi.  28 407 

xii.  46  £ 322 

xiii.  33 406 

xiii.  55 322 

xv.  11 128 

xv.  17 233 

xvi.  16  £ 340  f. 

xviL  20 145 

xviii.  10 407 

xix.8 400 

xix.ll,  12 234 

xixl2 235 

xix.  14 407 

xix.  16  f 407 

xx.  20 355 

xx.  28 '417 

xxi.42 41 


Matthew  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  xxii.  44. 461 

xxvi.  60,  61 52 

xxvii.  56 322,354 

xxviii.  1 322 

xxviii.  18,  20 461 

MARK. 

i.  20 354 

iii.  17 356 

iii.  31...-. 322 

v.  22 34 

vi.  3 322 

xv.  40 322,  354 

xvi.l .-...  354 

xvi.  17 16 

LUKE. 

i.2 4 

iv.  20 32 

v.  32 406 

vii.  3 34 

viii.  19  f 322 

▼iii.  41,  49 34 


Luke  continued. 

PAG* 

Ch.  ix51 7 

xi.23f -....  209 

xi.  34-36 407 

xiii.  14 34 

xvii.  10 434 

xviii.  16 407 

xviii.  18  f 407 

xx.2 41 

xxl  15 16 

xxiii.  34,  46 56 

xxiv.  53 9 


JOHN. 

368—371. 

i.  1  f 3691 

L  4,  5 509 

i.  7-14 510 

i.  12 511 

i.   14 369,  514 

i.  29 517 

L  32 515 

L  37 355 

L40 356 

i.43 3:8 


534 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  QUOTED  OR  EXPLAINED. 


John  continued. 

PAGE 

,  Ch.  i.  52 72 

ii.  11 515 

ii.'23 516,  520 

hi 528,  529 

iii.  5 529 

iii.  6 511 

iii.  8 6 

iii.  17 525 

iii.  21 76,514 

iv.  6. 355 

iv.  14 518,524 

iv.  22 Ill 

v 526 

v.  26 516 

v.  28,  29- 526 

vi 529,530 

vi.  29 519 

vi.  44,  45 512 

vi.  45 515 

vi.51 517 

vi.  50,  58 529 

vi.  63 529 

vi.  68 516 

vi.  68,  69 340 

vii.  3 323 

vii.  5 325 

vii.  38 518 

vii.  39 518 

viii.  31 521 

viii.  44 510 

viii.  47 513 

ix.  39,  40 525 

x 341 

X.  16 528 

X.  18 527 

xii.  24 6,  518 

xii.  31 409 

xii.  32 518 

xii.  40 512 

xiii.  31 514,  517 

xv 522 

xvi.  11 409 

xvi.  13 48 

xvi.  14, 527 

xvi.  33 520 

xvii.  1-5 518 

xvii.  19 517 

xvii.  21  f 528 

xviii.  37 513 

xix.  25 322,  354 

xix.  27 323 

xix.  34 369 

xx.  21,  22 7 

xx.  30,  31 368 

xxi 341 

xxi.  18 348 

ACTS. 

i.  7 180 

L  13 9,  322,  326 

i  14 322 


Acts  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  i.  26 9 

ii.  1-41 5-20 

ii.  1 7 

ii.  2-6..- 10,  11 

ii.  4 15 

ii.  5 8 

ii.  6,  11 14 

ii.  7-12 15 

ii.  8 11 

ii.  9 8 

ii.  12,  13 15 

ii.  14 8,  9 

ii.  15 9,  15 

ii.  24 19 

ii.  39 19,  20 

ii.  42 23 

it  43 38 

ii.  44,  45 23-26 

ii.  46 23,  131 

ii.  47 27 

iii.  i-iv.  22 39-43 

iv.  1 38 

iv.  4 43,  44 

iv.  5 42 

iv.  7,  11,  16 41 

iv.  32,  35 23-26 

iv.  36 35 

v.  1-11 25,  26 

v.  2 30 

v.  4 24 

v.6,10 30 

v.  12-42 42-46 

V.  12,  13 26 

v.  19  f. 43,  44 

v.  32 44 

V.  36 45,  46 

vi 24,  29 

vi.  1-6 30-33 

vi.  1 31 

vi.  2 30 

vi.  3 32 

vi.  5-7 47 

vi.  7 43 

vi.  8-vii.  60 46-57 

vi.  9... 48 

vi.  11 49 

viii.  1-25 : 57-63 

viii.  5 60 

viii.  20,  21,  22 63 

ix 86,  89 

ix.   1-25 85-93 

ix.  7 89 

ix.  19,  23 92 

ix.  23,  24 94 

ix.  26-30 86-103 

ix.  27 324 

ix.  31 69 

x.  1-11;  xviii 66-77 

x.3 72 

x.ll 74 

x.  12 89 

x.30 71 


Acts  continued. 

PA  OB 

Ch.  x.  37 71 

x.  46 16 

xi.  5 74 

xi.  17    77 

xi.  19-30 104-106 

xi.  20 65 

xi.  30 29,  32 

xii 106-112 

xii.  1 107 

xii.  12 25 

xiii.  9 80 

xiii.  13 80 

xiii.  14 111-119 

xiii.  15 34,  36 

xiii.  39 114 

xiii.  42 114 

xiii.  44 115 

xiv.  6 119 

xiv.  11 12 

xiv.  13,  14 118 

xiv.  17 392 

xiv.  23 146,  148,  197 

xv.  1-31 120,134 

xv.  7 125 

xv.  10 404 

xv.  12 125 

xv.  19,  20 127-129 

xv.  21 127,  505 

xv.  22 125 

xv.  22-24 131 

xv.  23-29 130-132 

xv.  23 131 

xv.  25 103 

xv.  27 131 

xv.  28 131 

xv.  29 ...132 

xv.  36-xviii.  17.. 167-201 

xvi.  1 168 

xvi.   1,  2 168 

xvi.  3 169 

xvi.  10,   13 173 

xvi.  16 174 

xvii.  6 181 

xvii.  10 182 

xvii.  14 182 

xvii.  16 190 

xvii.  21 183 

xvii.  22 185 

xvii.  28 390 

xvii.  30 189,  402,  415 

xvii.  31,  32 189 

xviii.  2 203 

xviii.  5 190 

xviii.  8 34 

xviii.  9 89 

xviii.  15 193 

xviii.  18 34 

xviii.  18-xix.  40,  202-274 

xviii.  18,  22 202,  203 

xviii.  21 202,  203 

xviii.  23 241 

xviii.  24 220 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  QUOTED  OR  EXPLAINED. 


535 


Acts  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  xviii.  26 203 

xix.  1 211,  241 

xix.  6 16,  36 

xix.  15 209 

xix.  20 254 

xix.  22 250,  309 

xix.  29 168 

xix.  33   320 

xx.-xxiv 274-289 

xx.  3 .-182 

xx.  4 168 

xx.  7 159 

xx.  17 147,  148 

xx.  20 275 

xx.  22 275 

xx.  23 275,  314 

xx.  25-31 274-276 

xx.  28 148 

xx.  29 277 

xx.  30 277 

xx.  31 275 

xx.  31,  33 278 

xx.  34 179 

xx.  35 179,  278 

xx.  36-38 279 

xxi.  8 33 

xxi.  9 150 

xxi.  19 272 

xxi.  20 280 

xxi.  21 272,  505 

xxi.  24 282 

xxi.  25 245 

xxi.  27 282 

xxi.  39 80 

xxii 86,  89 

xxii.  3 80 

xxii.  17 89 

xxii.  21 103 

xxiii.  3 283 

xxiii.  5 284 

xxiii.  9 285 

xxiii.  14 203 

xxiv.  11 282 

xxiv.  17 272 

xxiv.  27 285 

xxv.-xxviii 286-289 

xxv.  19 185 

xxvi 86,  89 

xxvi.  28 287 

xxviii.  16 288 

xxviii.  22 288 

xxviii.  23 288 

xxviii.  30 288 

xxviii.  30,  31  ...288,  289 

ROMANS. 

262-271. 

i.  3,  4 468 

i.4 467 

15,6 263 

18 262 


Romans  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  i.  12 135 

i.  13,   14 263 

i-   16 Ill,  167,  183 

i.  18 401,  404 

i.  19 187,  393 

i.   20,   21 392 

i.   21,   25 187 

i.  28 393 

i.  32 393,  402' 

ii.  1 393 

ii.  4 348 

ii.  9 167,  393 

ii.  14-26 403 

ii.  15 283 

ii.  29 306 

iii.  8 330 

iii.  20 392 

iii.  21 423 

iii.  25 189,  402,  415 

iii.  28 346 

iv.   15 403 

iv.   18 420 

iv.  19  f 419  f 

iv.   20 419 

iv.  22 419 

iv.  25 113,  411 

v.  4 437 

v.  5 434 

v.  7 382 

v.  8 412 

v.  9 417 

v.  10 412,  414 

v.  12 390,  391 

v.  13 261,  41-5 

v.  13,    14 402 

v.  18 409 

v.  18,  19   410 

v.  19-21 430 

v.- 20 54,  399,  400 

vi.  1 330 

vi.  2 428 

vi.  4 151,  451 

vi.  4-6    427 

vi.  5-8 480 

vi.  6 385 

vi.  10 411 

vi.  11 480 

vi.  11-13 429 

vii 396,  398,  428 

vii.  2,  4.. 423 

vii.  5 385 

vii.  9  f 389 

vii.  10,  11 396 

vii.  12 382,  385 

vii.  13 400 

vii.  15 429 

vii.  22 395 

vii.  24 91 

vii.  25 397 

viii.  2 422 

viii.  3 408,  466,  469 

viii.  5 384 


Romans  continued. 

FAGB 

Ch.  viii.  10 482 

viii.  11  f 430 

viii.  13 429 

viii.  15 426 

viii.  16 434 

viii.  18 346 

viii.   19-23 480 

Viii.  23 417,  435,  436 

viii.  24 437,  440 

viii.  26 436 

viii.  28  f. 478 

viii.  31,   32 430 

viii.  32 412 

viii.  38 460 

ix 474-479 

ix.  4 401 

ix.  5 466 

ix.  8 421 

ix.  30,31 404,  477 

x.  3 404 

x.  5-10 421,  422 

x.  6 304 

xi 266 

xi.   12 112 

xi.   13 263 

xi.  14   112,  122 

xi.  17,  18 265 

xi.   18 456 

xi.  20 477 

xi.  22 486 

xi.  32 405,  475,  480 

xi.  33    .144,  475 

xi.  33-36 266 

xii.   1 134,  427 

xii.  3 430,  444 

xii.  6 431 

xii.  7 145 

xii.  7,  8 303 

xii.  8 152,  276 

xii.  9,  10 138 

xiii.  7 446 

xiii.  8 ii 424 

xiii.  9 ' 385 

xiii.   11 417 

xiv 262 

xiv.  1 431 

xiv.  1-6 158 

xiv.  2 267,  270,  431 

xiv.  3 267 

xiv.  6 268 

xiv.  15 433 

xiv.  16 453 

xiv.  17.233,  271,  433,453 

xiv.  21 267,  270 

xiv.  23 443 

xiv.-xv 262  f 

xv.  7 262,  271 

xv.  15 265 

xv.  19 261 

xv.  20 168 

xv.  24,  28 ..  250 

xv.  31 276 


536 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  QUOTED  OR  EXPLAINED. 


Romans,  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  xv.  31,  32 274 

1     xvi.  1 146,  155 

xvi.  3 194,  203 

xvi.  4 256 

xvi.  7 323 

xvi.  14,  15 153 

xvi.  17 262,  271 

xvi.  19 262 

xvi.  23,  153,  168,  229,  309 


I.  CORINTHIANS. 

243—251. 

i.  2 243 

i.  5 237 

i.  11,  12 242 

i.  12 218,  222,  224 

i.  13 223 

i.  14 168 

i.  16 195 

i.  1-18 243 

i.  22.  23 261,  405 

i.  23 183 

i.  26 191,  229 

i.  29,  30 303 

ii.  4 195,  261 

ii.  6 144 

ii.  11 230 

ii.  14 386,  394.  438 

iii.  6,  7 221 

iii.  9,  10 136 

iii.  11 448 

iii.  11-15 244 

iii.  12 221 

iii.  16,  17 221,  245 

iii.  18 183,  405 

iii.  21 243 

iii.  22 432 

iv.  7 443 

iv.  8-19 251 

iv.  9 460 

iv.  17 250 

iv.  20 237,  458 

v.  3. 258 

v.  3-5 149 

V.  5 252,  261 

v.  7 159 

v.  9-11 242 

v.  11 231 

vi.  5 146,  149 

vi.  7 251 

vi.  9 231,  449 

vi.  10 458 

vi.  11 194,452 

vi.  12 232,  246,  432 

vi.  12,  13 233 

vi.  14 480 

Vi.  15 304 

trii.  14 164,  165 

vii.  18.... 281 


1st  Corinthians,  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  vii.  20-22 248 

vii.  21  f. 248,  432 

vii.  22 425 

vii.  23,  24 248,  249 

vii.  24 123 

vii.  29,  30 247 

vii.  40 235 

viii.  2 438 

viii.  5 470 

viii.  6 464 

viii.. 7 231,  470 

viii.  8 233 

viii.  11 232 

viii.  12 433 

ix.  1 89 

ix.  1,  2 228 

ix.  1-19 432 

ix.  5 235,  342,  343 

ix.  5  f 323 

ix.  6 168 

ix.  14 178 

ix.  14,  15  f 433 

ix.   16-18 178 

ix.  20 123,  159 

ix.  21 425 

ix.  23 460 

x.  1 251 

x.  3,  4 455 

x.  4 465 

x.  9 465 

x.  14  f 455 

x.  17 455 

x.  19,  20 470 

X.  23 233,  432 

X.  24 432,  433 

x.  27-29 231,  232 

x.  31 432,  433 

xi.  5 150 

xi.   10 460 

xi.  19 277 

xi.  23 101 

xi.  24 453 

xi.  25 454 

xi.  26 453 

xi.  29 454 

xii 451 

xii.  If 135 

xii.  3 449 

xii.  4 460 

xii.  7 136 

xii.  8 143 

xii.  9 145 

xii.  9,  10 138 

xii.  11 136 

xii.  13 160,  452,  455 

xii.  28.. 33,  145,  152,  276, 
303. 

xiii 137 

xiii.  2 143,  145 

xiii.  4,  5 446 

xiii.  9-12 439 

xiii.  13 439 


1st  Corinthians,  continued. 

PAG* 

Ch.xiv.  14 394 

xiv.  14-16 141 

xiv.  20 407,445 

xiv.  21-24 139,  140 

xiv.  25 140 

xiv.  26 152 

xiv.  30,  31 142 

xiv.  34 150 

xv 237,  480,  484 

xv.  6 43 

xv.  7 324,  326 

xv.  8 89 

xv.  17 411 

xv.  19 436 

xv.  22 486 

xv.  23,  24 486 

xv.  24 460 

xv.  27,28 485,  486 

xv.  29 163 

xv.  30 249 

xv.  30,  31 256 

xv.  31,  32 255 

xv.  32-35 238,  239 

xv.  33 230 

xv.  45 392 

xv.  46 389 

xv.  46,  47 391 

xv.  55-58 485 

xv.  56 392 

xvi.  2 158,  159 

xvi.  4 273 

xvi.  5 251 

xvi.  7 241 

xvi.  8 249 

xvi.  9 359 

xvi.  10 250 

xvi.  12 249 

xvi.  13 445 

xvi.  15 156,  162,  195 

xvi.  15,  16 146,  276 

xvi.  20 153 


II.  CORINTHIANS. 

257—260. 

i.  1 195 

i.  5 256 

i.  8 256 

i.  12 445 

i.  12,  13 259 

i.  15 258 

i.  16 25] 

i.  16-22 260 

i.  22 435 

ii.  1 240 

ii.  5 252 

ii.  5-10 257,  253 

ii.  6 252 

ii.  10-11 472 

ii.  16 526 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  QUOTED  OR  EXPLAINED. 


537 


2d  Corinthians,  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  iii.  6  f. 422 

iv.  4 467 

iv.  7 256 

iv.  9  256 

iv.  10 256 

iv.  11 256 

iv.  16 395,  482 

v.  4 391,  392 

V.  6-8 484 

V.  7 440 

V.  9 256 

v.  10 505 

V.  12 228 

V.  13 260 

V.  16 83 

v.  16,  17 228 

v.  17 449 

v.  18 412 

V.  20 412,  413,  414 

V.  21 410 

vL  9 256 

vii.  2 207 

vii.  5 256 

vii.  8-12 252 

vii.  9 252 

vii.  11 258 

vii.  14 253 

viiL 257 

viii.  9 465,  469 

viii.  13 24 

Viii.  18 259 

viii.  19 156 

ix 262 

ix.  12-15 273 

X.  7 224,  228 

x.10 258 

x.  14-16 261 

X.16 168,  250 

xi 218 

xL4,  5 227 

XL  5 346 

XL  6 82,  222 

xi.  9 197,  350 

xL  18 228 

xi.  21 260 

xi.  22 80 

xi.  25 177 

xi.  26,  27... 203 

xi.  29 212,  278 

xi.  30 93 

xi.  32 93,  94 

xii.  2 88 

xii.  7 256 

xii.  7,  10 171 

xii.  12 194,  254 

xii.  13,  14  240 

xii.  18 250 

xii.  20,  21 240 

xiii.  1 240 

xiii.  4 84,  411 

Xiii.  6.  8 260 

xiii.  13 .  530 


Galatians. 
GALATIANS. 
212—217. 

PAGE 

Ch.  i. 99 

i.  1 88,  89 

i.  4 457 

i.  6 207 

i.  9 207 

i.  10 214 

i.  12 101 

i.  12-16 89 

i.  14 83 

i.  17 93 

i.  18 94 

i.  18-24 94-103 

i.  19 323 

i.  21 130 

ii.  1-10 107  f.  119-134 

ii.  2 109,  121 

ii.  4-6 124 

ii.  5 125 

ii.  9 124,  356 

ii.  10 218 

ii.  1 1-17,204-206,  341,  342 

ii.  11-18 67 

ii.  12 279 

ii.  14 506 

ii.  18 205 

ii.  19 423 

ii.  20 387,  428 

iii.  2,  5 211 

iii.  5 215,  449 

iii  10 3B3 

iii.  12 502 

iii.  13 404,  410 

iii.  14 404 

iii.  15 399 

iii.  18 399 

iii.  19 261,  399 

iii.  21 383 

iii.  23 400 

iii.  24 400 

hi.  26-28 448 

iii.  27 160,  451,  452 

iii.  28 236,  427 

iv.  2 261 

iv.  4 7,  405,  464 

iv.  5 436 

iv.  6 426,  464 

iv.  8 426,  470 

iv.  9 '.401,  426 

iv.  9f. 135,  157 

iv.  12 215 

iv.  14 172 

iv.  16 208 

iv.  18-20 208 

iv.  21 473-475 

iv.  26 457 

iv.  29 473 

v.  2,  3 207 

v.  5 437 


Galatians,  continued. 

PAGI 

Ch.  v.  6 427 

v.  11 217 

v.  12 213,  306 

v.  13 267,  329 

V.  16-18 428,  429 

v.  20 231,  316,  386 

V.  21 207,  329 

V.  22,  23 424 

v.  24 428 

V.  25 428 

v.  26 154 

vi.  6 154 

vi.  6,  7 154 

vi.  11 214 

vi.  12 216,  217 

vi.  12,  13 213 

vi.  13 213 

vi.  14 217 

vi.  17 217,  218 

EPHESIANS. 

302—305. 

i-  1 305 

i.  4 405,  479 

i.  10 7,  405 

i-  14 417 

i-  18 438 

i-  23 300 

ii-  2 470 

ii.  8-10 303 

ii.  9,  10 435 

ii.  10 384 

ii.  12 '.  262 

ii.  14 48 

ii.  14,  16 459 

ii.  19,  20 456 

ii.  20 302,  448 

hi.  3 207,  304 

iii.  5 302 

iii.  9 405 

iii.  10 71,  144,  476 

iii.  15 459 

iii.  16,  17 395 

iii.  17 434 

iii.  19 300,  412 

iv.  2 444 

iv.  4 448 

iv.  8 304,  471 

iv.  11..  146,  150,  152,  302 

iv.  16 145,  450 

iv.  19 403 

iv.  24 390 

iv.  25 506 

iv.  28 304 

v.  5,  6 207 

v.  6 166,  180,  329 

v.  14 304 

V.  15  f 445 

v.  23 304 

v.  25  f. 246 

v.  25  26  374 


538 


INDEX  TO  TEXTS  QUOTED  OR  EXPLAINED. 


Ephesians,  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  v.  26  f. 452 

1    vi.  2,   3 304 

vi.  11 472 

vi.  12 472 

vi.  21 304 

PHILIPPIANS. 

302—305. 

i.  1 146,  148,  306 

i.  7 309 

i.  15-18 292 

,  i.  18 293 

i.  20 319 

i.  21 483 

i.  21-24 391 

i.  23 483 

ii.  3 444 

ii.  4-7 306 

ii.  5-9 468 

ii.  6  411 

ii.  7 468 

ii.  10,  11 486 

ii.  12 443 

iii.  2,  3 305 

iii.  3 427 

iii.  5 80 

iii.  6 83,  382,  384 

iii.  9-15 306 

iii.  11-12 305 

iii.  12 318,  430,  433 

iii.  15 99,  305 

iv.  3 306 

iv.  12,  13 171 

iv.  16 179,  197 

iv.  22 291,  292 

COLOSSIANS. 

293—302. 

i.6 170 

i.7 170 

i.  9 438 

i.  15 468 

i.  16 467 

i.  18 467 

i.  19 300 

L  20 460,  487 

ii.  1 170 

ii-  5 170 

ii.  8 294,  295,  297 

ii.  9 300 

ii.  11 385 

it  14 385 

ii.  15 471 

ii.  16 158 

ii.  18 301,  386 

ii.  20 297 

iii.  2 429 

iii.  3 427 

iii.  4 437 

iii.  5 429 


Colossians,  continued. 

PAGE 

Ch.  iii.  10 390 

iii.  11 448 

iii.  12 444 

iii.  14.. .  ,. 446 

iv.  1 446 

iv.  5 444,  445 

iv.  8 302 

iv.  10 353 

iv.  11 292 

iv.  12 294 

iv.  14 173 

iv.  15 153 

iv.  16 198 

I.  THESSALONIANS. 

196—198. 

i.  3 435,  438 

i.  7,  8 195 

i.  9 196 

i.  9,  10 178 

ii.  9 179 

ii.  10,  11 178 

ii.  12 180,  458 

ii.  14,  15 198 

ii.  18 181 

iii.  1 ISO,  191 

iv.  6 207 

iv.  8 180 

iv.  9 423 

iv.  13 196,  197 

iv.  17 484 

v.  12 146,  197 

v.  19 196 

v.  21 143 

v.  21-23 199 

v.  23 394 

v.  27 198 

II.  THESSALONIANS. 

200—201. 

i.  4 196,  438 

i.  5 458 

i.  7-9 485 

ii.  2 199 

iii.  2 200 

iii.  17 199 

I.  TIMOTHY. 

312—314. 

i.  4 313,  314,  316 

i.  9 313 

i.  20 319 

ii.  7 313 

ii.  12 150 

ii.  15 314 

iii.  1 147,  313 

iii-  6 197 

iii.  8 33,  148 

iii  15 313 


1st  Timothy,  oontinued. 

'  .  PAGS 

Ch.  iv.  1. 314 

iv.  8 313 

iv.  12 315 

v.  3-16 155 

v.  17,  18 313 

vi.  12 162 

II.  TIMOTHY. 

317—320. 

''•  5 168 

i-  6 156 

i.  7 444 

i.  15 310 

ii-  3 472 

ii.  9 317 

"•  17 308 

ii.  19,  20 450,  457 

»•  21 478 

i'.  22 315 

ii.  23 ; 317 

iv.  5 151 

iv.  6-8 3]8 

iv.  7,  8. 319 

iv.  13 309 

iv.  14 319 

iv.  16 369 

iv.  17 318,  319 

iv.  1 8 483 

iv.  19 203 

iv.  20 309 

TITUS. 

315—317. 

i-  5 U8 

i-  5  f 156 

i-  5-7 148 

i-  9 154 

ii.  6 444 

»•  12 444 

ii-  15 315 

iii-  2 316 

iii-  4 412 

iii.  5 452 

iii.  9 316 

iii.  10 316 

PHILEMON. 

293. 

Verse  22 293 

23 294 


320,  487-498. 

Ch.  ii.  3 488 

ii.  14 492 

iii.  6 495 

iii.  12 488 

iii  14 49 


INDEX   TO   TEXTS    QUOTED    OR   EXPLAINED. 


539 


Hebrews,  continued, 

PAGE 

Ch.  iv.  12 498 

v.  7 492 

v.  7,  8 494 

v.  12 297,  426 

vi.  1 488 

vi.  4 488,  489 

vi.  5 496 

vi.  19 496 

vii.  19 489 

vii.  25,  26 -  494 

viii.  12 489 

ix.9. 491 

ix.  10 491 

ix.  14 489 

ix.15 489 

ix.  23 495 

ix.  28 494,  495 

X.  22  ..„ 491,  495 

x.  23,  2^ 495 

x.  32 488 

x.  36 495 

xi 499 

xi.  1 496 

xL3 496 

xi.40 488 

xii.2 496 

xii.22 496 

xii.23 491 

xiii  28 489 

xiii.  7 36 

xiiL  9 488 

xiii.  10 491 

xiii.  13 491 

xiii.  15 489 

xiii.  17 36 

xiii.  20 •. .  493 

xiii.  23 320 

JAMES. 

327-337,  498-508. 

i.  4 503 

i.  6 326 

i.  9,  10 335 

i.  10 335 

i.  13-16 507 

i.  15 507 

i.  18 501 

L19 336 

L  21 504 

L26 302,  503 


James,  contiuued. 

PAOE 

Ch.  i.  27 132 

ii.  7 334,  335 

ii.  8 503 

ii.  13 504 

ii.  18 500 

ii.  26 500 

iii.  If. 34 

hi.  1,  2 336 

iii.  2 504 

iv.  7 507 

iv.  7,  8 507 

v.  4 334 

v.  12 506 

I.  PETER. 

343—347. 

i.  5 417 

i.  8 344 

ii.  9 134 

ii.  10 346 

iii.  21 161 

iv.  3 346 

iv.  4,  5 345 

W.  11 138,  145 

v.  1 344,  347 

v.  1,2 147 

v.  12 346 

v.  13 343 

II.  PETER. 

347_348. 

i.  14 348 

i.  18 348 

iii.  15 348 

I.  JOHN. 

371—375. 

i.  2 514 

i.  9 522 

i.  10 512 

ii.  19 528 

ii.  22 373 

ii.  23 530 

ii.  28 528 

iii.  2 528 

iii.  9 522 

iii.  16 520 

iii.  24 530 


1st  John,  continued. 

PAOH 

Ch.  iv.  1 360 

iv.  4 521 

iv.  10 517 

iv.  10-19 520 

v.  3 520 

v.  4 520 

v.  16 523 

v.  18 521 

II.  JOHN. 

375—376. 

Terse  7 376 

9 530 

in.  JOHN. 
528 


JUDE. 

362—363.  . 

Verse  1 322,  362 

17 362 

REVELATION. 

365—367. 

Ch.  i.  1 366 

i.  2 367 

i.  9 367 

i.  17 365 

ii.  2 359 

ii.  6 360 

ii.  9 359 

ii.  15 360 

ii.  20 360 

ii.  24 360 

iii.  14 365 

vi.  9 345 

vii.  4 365 

vii.  17 365 

xiii.  3 366 

xiv.  3 365 

xvi.  12 366 

xvii.  6 345 

xvii.  8 366 

xvii.  16 366 

xix.  30 365 

xx.  4 345 

xxi.  14 366 


II 


INDEX  OF  GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES. 


'kyanai,  23,  28,  249. 

dyysXoi,  55. 

dyia,  164. 

ddetyog  tov  Xpicrov,  223,  322. 

ayioi,  448. 

u^v/wi,  160. 

dicadapTa,  164. 

dicpiptig  TZEpLnaTslv,  445. 

Oiuv  ovrog,  456,  457,  491. 

c/«i>  jueXTiuv,  456,  457,  491. 

ahrjdeiac,  ek  Trig,  eivai,  513. 

u/xapna,  239,  399,  400. 

dvaCTroq;£fw<Tif,  189. 

uvrjp  ?.oyiog,  220. 

tivo^j?  rov  Oeov,  415. 

dv(5p«a,  445. 

dvfipi&odat,  445. 

dvrilr/ipEtg,  33,  141. 

a7TiCTTOf,  139. 

dnoKaAvTrreiv,  99. 

dTro/caA^ir,  47,  99,  139,  142,  151. 

dnoicaXvipEtg  Kvptov,  142. 

ano'Avrpuaig,  477. 

'Apfwcrat,  147. 

u'/s^ayyeAof,  299. 

dpxi<7wayuyof,  34,  148. 

'Aoiapxai,  255. 

d0«j(f,  114,  415. 

Bapvaflag,  35. 
(icnvTicfxa,  iv,  448. 

rAwffffajf  /\aA£iv,  11-18,  140-142. 
yvwovf,  47,  143,  313. 

Aenrvov  Kvpiov,  23. 

deiotdai/uuv,  185. 

deioidaiftovia,  185. 

6iadr)Kj],  8,  454. 

diaicovia,  31. 

Siaicovoi,  29. 

diaKoveiv  Tpane&ic,  31. 

Sianpioig  nvevfiaruv,  142. 

dtaonopa,  263. 

dt(5a<r/caAoi,    1    35,  138,    140,   142,  152, 

•5tdacr/fa/Ua,    )        303. 


ScSaxv,  152. 

diicaiog,  382,  409,  416. 

SiKaioovvT),  382,  418,  446,  523. 

fiiKaioovvr/  vofiiKT],  382. 

dinaiov  kcli  loov,  446. 

diKaiujia,  409. 

&/c<uo<Tt{-,  410,  417,  418,  523. 

<5i/c?7,  441. 

dofa,  516. 

Scopduaig,  491. 

douAeta,  425. 

<5ov/leta  T»?f  u/iaprtag,  396. 

doi/Aeueti',  425. 

dwarof  ry  marei,  430. 

'Eavru  f^v,  387. 

kHpatog,  80. 

e0v?7,  263. 

€KK?iTiaia,  148,  448,  528. 

EKKArjata  h  ru  ot«u,  153. 

eAewv,  145. 

i2.Xj]VLGTT)g,  80. 

e^f,  437. 

ETUOKonoi,  147,  148. 

tnepuTTjfia,  161. 

£pya,  500. 

epya  vo/iot;,  423,  435. 

Ipya  dyafla,  423,  435. 

ipuqvEia,  17. 

kpji7]VEia  yAuaauv,  142. 

kp/urjvEvg,  12. 

ipjU7jVEVT)ig,  12. 

ipXEcdai  SC  ai/uaTog,  61  vdarog,  373,  374 

EvayysAioTai,  151. 

Evayy£?uov  nvev/iariKov,  526. 

ecpEoia  ypa/u/uara,  208. 

Zerf,  118. 
&»%  382,  410. 

'HytaofiEvoi,  448. 
f/fispai  Tivlc,  92. 
ijfMEpai  Uavai,  92. 

Qr/oavpi&v,  159. 
0eov,  c/c,   etvai,  513. 


INDEX   OF   GREEK   WORDS   AND   PHRASES. 


541 


'la/cw(3<.-,  T/vef  airo,  204. 
'lditJTTjt,  r£>  hoyu,  82. 
'lcpovaaATju,  tj  avut  457. 
'ldiurai,  134. 
•Leerr/f,  59,  497. 
l?*aofios,  517. 

Kaipoc  eveori]Koc,  491. 
Kara  irpoouTvov,  228. 
/cevot  2.oyoL,  160,  180. 
uTiTjpovo/iia,  436. 

K?^7]TOl,  449. 

KOivuvca,  23. 

KOGfJLOQ,  448. 

Kvf3epvrjaic,  152. 
Kwef,  305. 

Aoyof,  59,  63,  369,  502. 
/loyof  yvuaeut;,  143—145. 
Zoyof  co<piac,  143-145. 
Aaof,  263,  492. 

Madrirai,  211. 
fianpodv/uia,  445. 
Heya7.otl)vxia,  441. 
fieradidovc,  145. 
fiera^v,  114. 

Newrepot,  29. 
veavicwoi,  29. 
vojuof,  382,  422-425. 
vo/iof  re/.eioc,  502. 
vovj-,  133,  141,  394. 

Ohodo/xeiv,  136,  448. 

o'tKovfievTj,  105. 

oiKovjievri  (iEA"kovaa,  491. 

oi  rov  XPL°T0V,  223,  224,  228,  230. 

ol  rot!  'laicuftov,  223. 

bmaaLai,  142. 

6/3737,  416. 

IIape<nf,  189,  415. 
napaK?i7iToc,  59. 
napovaia,  527,  528. 
n-e^ap^owref,  44. 
mjXiKog,  214. 

7r0/>iV7T0£K£/l0f,  476. 

mtTUf,  47,  145,  431,  488. 
nXTjpufia,  300. 

TrA^pu^a  rotf  xPavov,  T&v  Kaipuv,  7. 
Trvei^a,  138,  141,  394,  395,  428. 


irvevjxa  uyiov,  430. 
noi/ievcCt  1.52. 
npeapvrepot,  29,  33. 
irpooevxv,  1^3. 
izpocEVXV  'Iwff>70,  59. 
irpoQqTeiai,  35,  140. 
irpotpTjTevELv,  16,  17. 
npuTOv  'lovdaiu,  111. 

'Pj?//a,  63. 

2ap£  386,  428. 

oapiwca,  163,  426. 

arj/xeia,  138. 

onoTia,  509. 

tro^ta,  143,  144,  444,  445. 

tro^iav  ^reiv,  192,  222,  386. 

oTotxela  tov  koo[xov,  297,  401,  426. 

arparrjyov,  175. 

ovfinooia  cpiXiKa,  236. 

ovvayoyt],  334. 

aufiariKi]  yv/nvaota,  313. 

aoxppoveiv,  444. 

cufpoovvi],  444,  446. 

ocMppovtofioc,  4A4. 

ouTTjpia,  417,  525. 

TanecvocppoovvT},  441. 
ra7T«i>ov,  441. 
rcAem,  501. 

T£/l«CJ<7lf,  496. 

Yfof  napaK?i7}oeoc,  35. 

i;iOf  rou  avdpwTvov,  and  viof  tov  0eou,  46L 

vioc  npofyriTEias,  35. 

viodeaia,  425,  436. 

vnepuov,  9. 

viTOjiovri,  438,  445. 

¥1^17,  138,  394,  395. 

•fcavepow,  99. 

<pavepuoi£  tov  nvev/taToc,  136. 

<£ilooo(pia,  295,  313. 

(ppovTjais,  446. 

(j>povLfioc,  143. 

Xapcafia,  137. 

Xapiojia   /ct>/3epvJ70"ewf,  or   tov  irpoiaravat, 

145,  341. 
Xapia/xa  StaKoviag,  or  avT&ijipcuc,  145,  147. 
X7?P<u,  155. 


III. 
GENERAL   INDEX. 


Abraham,  his  faith,  works,  and  righteous- 
ness, 215,  328,419,  420-450:  promises  to, 
40,  215,  399. 
Abyssinia,  introduction  of  the  Gospel  into,  64. 
Acts,  credibility  of,  in  general,  1-4 ;  in  par- 
ticulars, on  account  of  their  simplicity  and 
artlessness,  25,  41,  43,  50,  68,  130,283;  as 
well  as    on  account  of  single  unhistorical 
•      features,  14,  18,  44,  45  ;  credibility  not  de- 
stroyed by   certain  inexactnesses,  52,   96, 
103 ;  nor  by  evidence  of  its  not  being  al- 
ways founded  on  original  accounts,  41,  42  ; 
but  confirmed  by  many    striking  coinci- 
dences with  the  epistles  of  Paul,  94,^170, 189. 
Acbaia,  Paul  aud  the  churches  in,  191,  196, 

200,  212,  241,  250,  261,  274,  312. 
Adam  and  Christ,  408. 

Adiaphorism,  germs  of  a  false,  at  Corinth,  232. 
Adoption,  threefold  application  of  the  idea  of, 

436. 
Agabus,  the  prophet,  foretells  an  approach- 
ing famine,  105. 
Agapte,  or  love-feasts,  23,  165;  236. 
Agrippa  II.,  Paul's   examination  before,  286, 

287. 
Alexander,  a  Jew,  at  Ephesus,  255. 
Alexander,  of  Abonoteichos,  112. 
Alexander,  the  copper-smith,  319. 
Alexandrine  Jewish  theology,  its  relation  to 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  496. 
Ananias,  a  Jewish  merchant,  converts  King 

Izates,  103. 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  their  fate,  26. 
Ananias,  high-priest,  Paul's  conduct  before 

him,  283. 
Ananias,  of  Damascus,  85,  92,  98. 
Ananus,  high-priest,  337. 
Angelic  appearances  under  the  new  dispen- 
sation, 44,  72. 
Angelolatry  professed  by  Jewish  Christians, 

299,  361. 
Angels,  the  giving  of  the  law  through,  55. 
Antichrist,  200,  366,  372. 
Antioch  of  Pisidia  visited  by  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas, 113. 
Antioch,  in  Syria,  the  Church  there  distin- 
guished as  the  Gentile  mother-church,  104 ; 
relation  of  the  Church  at,  to  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem,  105 ;    Paul  and  the  Church  at, 
104,  106,  110,   119,  167;   meeting  of  Paul, 
Barnabas,  and    Peter  at,  204 ;  controversy 
between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians, 
119,  132. 
Apocalypse,  when  written,  365 ;  its  author, 

375. 
Apollo,  one  of  his  prophetesses  dispossessed 

by  Paul,  174. 
Apollos,  an  Alexandrine  Jew,  an  anti-Pauline 
party  at  Corinth  formed  around  him,  220, 
227. 
Apollos,  one  of  John's  disciples,  220. 
Apostolic  Church,  sources  of  the  history  of 
the,  1-4.  ' 


Apostles,  significance  to  them  of  the  feast  ol 
Pentecost,  7;  the  only  guides  of  the  church 
at  first,  30,  35 ;  as  distinguished  from  evan- 
gelists and  teachers,  151 ;  gradual  release 
from  old  Testament  forms,  27,  36,  48,  51, 
62,  66,  122 ;  not  free  from  human  weak- 
ness, 167,  204;  possibility  in  them  of  an 
error  convexsatwnis  but  not  doctrin.ee,  342; 
possible  errors  in  matters  not  pertaining  to 
faith,  175 ;  not  gifted  with  infallible  fore- 
sight, 276 ;  their  progressive  knowledge  in 
Eschatology,  483,  484. 

Apostolic  Council,  121-131;  importance  of  its 
decision,  132. 

Aquila,  153,  192-194,  203,  220. 

Aquila  aud  Priscilla,  a  Christian  society  met 
in  their  house,  153 ;  their  interview  with 
Paul  at  Corinth,  194. 

Arabia,  Paul  in,  92. 

Aratus,  the  poet,  quoted  by  Paul,  188. 

Areopagus  at  Athens,  184. 

Aretas,  king  of  Arabia,  84,  93,  94. 

Aristarchus,  168,  294. 

Arnold  (Dr.),  his  sermons  quoted,  336. 

Artemis  worshipped  at  Ephesus,  208,  254. 

Artemonites,  265. 

Asiarchs,  their  office  at  Ephesus,  255. 

Athens  visited  by  Paul,  182 ;  its  altar  dedi- 
cated to  an  unknown  god,  186. 

Athinganians,  the,  300. 

Augustine,  Paul  and  Luther,  82. 

Babylon,  Peter  at,  343,  351. 

Baptism,  the  rite  of  admission  into  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  21,  160;  probably  ODly  one 
baptismal  formula,  21,  160 ;  performed  by 
immersion,  161 ;  practice  of  infant  baptism 
unknown  in  the  early  Church,  162-164; 
substitutionary  baptism  for  the  dead,  163; 
its  two-fold  reference  to  the  death  and  res- 
urrection of  Christ,  451. 

Barjesus,  an  itinerant  Jewish  goes,  112. 

Barnabas,  Paul's  coadjutor,  97,  104;  visits 
Antioch,  104 ;  Cyprus,  111 ;  Antioch  in 
Pisidia,  113;  separates  from  Paul,  167; 
weakness  of,  at  Corinth,  204. 

Barsabas,  messenger  from  Jerusalem  to  An- 
tioch, 130. 

Bartholomew's  mission  to  India,  102 ;  takes 
Matthew's  Gospel  with  him,  102. 

Beroea  visited  by  Paul  and  Silas,  182. 

Bishops,  overseers  of  the  whole  Church,  14b, 
their  duties,  148,  153. 

Brethren  of  Jesus,  321-324;  whether  Jude, 
author  of  the  epistle,  was  a  brother  of 
Jesus,  362. 

Cesarea  Stratonis,  Philip  at,  64;  Cornelius 

at,  69  ;  Paul  there  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem, 

279;  Paul  imprisoned  there,  285. 
Caius,  the  Roman  presbyter,  his  testimony 

respecting  the  graves  of  Peter  and  Paul, 

351. 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


543 


Cardinal  virtues,  the,  of  the  ancients  contem- 
templated  in  relation  to  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  446. 

Cathedra  Petri  in  Rome,  351. 

Celibacy,  its  first  manifestation,  233,  234; 
•why  recommended  by  Paul  in  certain  cases, 
235,  246. 

Cerinthus,  heretic,  299,  362. 

Charisms,  or  gifts  for  the  ministry  of  the 
word,  136-147  ;  for  the  government  of  the 
Church,  147-153  ;  the  gift  of  working  mi- 
racles, 145. 

Children,  the,  of  Christians,  in  what  sense 
holy,  164. 

Christ,  his  personal  existence  presupposed  by 
the  existence  of  the  Church,  51 ;  his  incar- 
nation, 514,  515;  miracles,  516;  various 
collections  of  his  life  and  discourses  pos- 
sessed by  his  immediate  disciples,  101 ;  his 
speedy  reappearance  expected?  by  the  early 
Christians,  27,  157,  196,  199,  246,  347,  459  ; 
work  of  redemption  accomplished  by  him, 
408-411  ;  his  humiliation  and  glorification, 
410;  his  sutferings,  410;  his  death,  410; 
and  resurrection,  411 ;  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  468 ;  the  belief  of  his  divinity  es- 
sential to  Christianity,  463;  his  victory 
over  the  kingdom  of  evil,  471. 

Christ-partv,  in  the  Church  of  Corinth,  no- 
ticed, 222-230. 

Christian  Church,  its  foundation  in  Palestine, 
5-20;  the  first  germ  of  its  constitution, 
20-38 ;  the  mixed  character  of  the  first  con- 
verts, 21 ;  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  22-28, 
156-166  ;  ecclesiastical  officers,  28-37,  145- 
154;  their  consecration,  156  ;  election,  156  ; 
the  outward  condition  of  the  primitive 
Church,  38-57;  the  division  between  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians,  120-134; 
the  ecclesiastical  usages  of  the  Gentile 
Christians,  134-166  ;  Christians  of  one  city 
formed  a  local  Church,  153 ;  Pauline  idea 
of  the  Church,  447-451. 

Christians,  origin  of  the  name,  105 ;  the  first 
names  of,  105. 

Christianity,  its  diffusion  from  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem  among  heathen  nations,  58-379  ; 
by  the  instrumentality  of  Peter,  65-77,  372 ; 
by  Paul,  78-320 ;  John  the  Evangelist,  388- 
413;  its  gradual  development,  280;  puri- 
fies, but  does  not  dissolve  the  social  rela- 
tions, 247 ;  not  merely  a  new  law,  but  a 
new  internal  creation,  504. 

Christology,  Paul's,  460-469. 

Chronology  of  the  New  Testament,  93,  103, 
105,  120,  205,  261,  285,  310. 

Church,  the,  Christ  its  historical  basis,  5,20  ; 
the  disciples  of  Christ  its  first  scaffoldi'ig, 
6 ;  the  Pentecostal  miracle  its  beginning,  5, 
9;  the  first  form  and  constitution  of  the 
community,  20-36 ;  government  of,  145- 
156 ;  its  discipline,  25,  26  ;  severity  of 
Paul's  church  discipline,  242 ;  Paul's  idea 
of  the  Church,  447-451 ;  John's,  528. 
Cilicia,  Christianity  in,  103,  168,  334. 
Circumcision,  108,  120,  124,   163,  213,   216, 

281. 
Civil  government,  a  divine  ordinance,  267. 
Claudius  banishes   the    Jews    from    Rome, 

192. 
Clemens  Romanus,  the  antiquity  of  his  first 

Epistle,  229. 
Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  on  Paul's  visit  to 


the  boundaries  of  the  West,  307,  311 ;  on 

the  martyrdom  of  Peter,  349. 
Clementines,  legendary  documents,  231,  264, 

298. 
Colossaj,  the  Church  there  founded  by  Epa- 

phras,  170,  294 ;  Philemon  the  overseer  of 

it,  291  •troubled  with  false  teachers,  294 ; 

whom  Paul  opposed,  297  ;  Paul's  Epistle  to 

this  Church,  conveyed  by  Tychicus,  302. 
Coming,  the  second,  of  Christ.     See  Parusie. 
Community  of  goods  in  the  early  Church,  25, 

Confirmation^.    See  Imposition  of  ITands. 

Consciousness  of  God,  our,  undeniableness 
of,  according  to  Paul,  401,  402. 

Consecration  to  church  offices,  how  conduct- 
ed, 156. 

Corinth,  the  metropolis  of  Achaia,  visited  by 
Paul,  191  ;  Church  founded  there  by  Paul, 
191-201 ;  Paul's  second  visit  to,  240-242 ; 
celebrated  as  a  seat  of  literature  and  philo- 
sophy, 192  ;  divisions  in  the  Church,  218- 
239  ;  Paul's  two  epistles  to  this  Church, 
243-260 ;  lost  epistles  to,  242,  251-253 ;  letter 
from  to  Paul,  243 ;  case  of  the  incestuous 
person,  242,  252 ;  Paul  a  third  time  in,  261 
-274. 

Cornelius,  the  centurion,  69-77,  97. . 

Council,  the  Apostolic,  125-132;  importance 
of  its  decision,  132. 

Covenant,  the  old  and  the  new,  8,  417,  454. 

Crete,  315. 

Cyprus,  65,  111,  163. 

Cyrene,  65. 

Cyrillus  Lucaris,  on  the  difference  between 
Paul  and  James  on  justification,  328. 

Damascus,  some  time  a  Roman  province,  84, 

i)3. 
Deaconesses,  their  functions,  155. 
Deacons,  their  appointment,  31,  32  ;    duties, 

32-47,  145. 
Death,  connection  of,  with  sin,  according  to 

Paul,  402  ;  John's  idea  of,  509. 
Decrees,  the  Divine,  399,  405,  474. 
Demetrius  at  Ephesus,  254. 
Demoniacal  possession,  175. 
Derbe,  119  ;  Timothy  not  from,  163. 
Descensus  ad  inferos,  344. 
Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,  his  statement 

respecting  Peter's  martyrdom,  190,  350. 
Dionysius,  the  Areopagite,  190. 
Diotrephes,  his  character,  376. 
Docetism,  the  heresy  of,  363  ;   its  refutation 

not  the  leading  object  of  the    Gospel  ot 

John,  369  ;  but  was  of  the  first  Epistle,  373. 
Duumvirs,  or  magistrates,  175. 

Easter  festival,  whether  observed  by  the  first 
Christians,  159  ;  certainlv  by  John,  358. 

Ebionitism,  germs  of,  22,  120,  124,  280; 
James  no  Ebionite,  327. 

Elders,  or  presbyters,  their  appointment,  33. 

Eleazer,  108,  120. 

Election  of  Church  officers,  156. 

Epaphras,  Paul's  pupil,  170;  and  fellow- 
prisoner,  294;  founder  of  the  Church  ol 
Colossaj,  170,  294. 

Epaphroditns,  messenger  of  the  Philippian 
Church,  305. 

Ephesus  described,  209  ;  visited  by  Paul,  208  ; 
repentance  of  the  Jewish  exorcists,  209  ; 
popular  tumult  against  Paul,  253;  Paul's 


544 


GENERAL    INDEX. 


Epistle  to  the  Church,  302 ;  a  metropolitan 

Church,  305. 
Epicurean  philosophers  at  Athens,  183,  238  ; 

not  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection, 238. 
Episcopoi.    See  Bishops. 
Erastus,  309. 
Eschatology,  Paul's,  479-487;    John's,  524- 

528. 
Essenes,  their  distinctive  tenets,  294. 
Esseuic  element  at  Colossse,  295. 
Ethiopia,   gospel    carried    to,  by   agency   of 

Phillip,  64. 
Excommunication,    an    act    of    the    whole 

Church,  149. 
Exorcists  at  Ephesus  converted,  209. 

Faith,  the  nature  of,  419  ;  as  exemplified  in 
Abraham,  419  ;  the  governing  principle  of 
the  Christian  life,  421,  427;  its  fruits  (di- 
vine) love,  434 ;  hope,  437 ;  and  knowl- 
edge, 438 ;  the  intimate  connection  be- 
tween faith  and  works,  499,  500 ;  over- 
comes the  world,  520. 

Faith,  articles  of,  only  one  at  the  first,  21. 

Faith,  confession  of,  at  baptism,  161,  162. 

Family,  relation  of  the,  to  the  Church,  22. 

Famine  in  Palestine,  a.  d.  44,  105. 

Felix,  procurator,  276;  Paul's  examination 
before  him,  285. 

Females  excluded  as  public  teachers,  149- 
154  ;  on  the  veiling  ot  females,  460. 

Festivals,  on  their  observance,  158,  358. 

Festus,  M.  Porcius,  285,  286. 

Freedom,  Christian,  misuse  of,  232,  245,  267, 
281,  301,  361,  432,  521 ;  freedom  of  the 
will  maintained  by  James,  507. 

Forged  epistles  not  uncommon  in  the  first 
century,  199  ;  for  this  reason  Paul  added 
his  autograph,  199. 

Gaius,  overseer  of  a  Church,  376. 

Galatian  churches,  172 :  Paul's  Epistle  to 
them,  214-217;  anti-Pauline  tendency  in 
these  churches,  215. 

Gallio,  deputy  of  Achaia,  frustrates  the  at- 
tempt of  the  Jews  against  Paul,  195. 

Gamaliel,  one  of  the  Sanhedrim,  45,  46,  81,  83. 

Gentiles,  intimations  of  their  conversion  in 
Peter's  Pentecostal  speech,  19,  20;  divine 
councils  in  reference  to  Gentiles  and  Jews, 
475,  476. 

Glossolaly,  11-18.- 

Gnostics,  Judaizing,  295,  299. 

Goet»,  a  mystical  sect,  58,  112,  209. 

Gospel,  contrasted  with  the  law,  422. 

Government  of  the  early  Church  was  by  the 
whole  body,  149. 

Grace,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  explained,  474-478. 

Hardening,  idea  of  the  divine,  477. 

Heathenism,  a  development  of  nature,  401 ; 
its  partial  fulfilment  of  the  law,  402. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  its  authorship,  320,  333, 
487  ;  doctrinal  character,  487-498  ;  points  of 
agreement  and  of  difference  between  Paul 
and  tne  author  of  the  epistle,  485-495  ;  al- 
lusions in  it  to  the  high-priesthood  of  Christ, 
493. 

Hegesippus,  historian,  325-327. 

Hellenists,  the,  29 ;  the  first  preachers  of  the 
Gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  65,  104 ;  Paul's 
dispute  with,  97,  103. 


Hellenistic,  the,  and  Palestinian  Christians, 
misunderstanding  between,  in  the  first 
churches,  31-33,  78. 

Hermas,  shepherd  of,  264. 

Herod  Agrippa,  governor  of  Judea,  106. 

Hierapolis,  170. 

Holiness  of  God  in  Christ's  work  of  atone- 
ment, 413-116. 

Holiness,  relation  of  the  idea  of  righteousness 
to,  418 ;  distinction  between  holiness  and 
justification  ever  to  be  kept  in  mind,  430. 

Hope,  faith,  and  love  in  Paul,  437  ;  in  John, 
524. 

Humility,  441  ;  true  and  false,  442-444. 

Idolatry,  Paul  on  the  origin  of,  187,  470. 

Iconium,  116,  168. 

Illyria,  261. 

Imposition  of  hands,  on  the  newly  baptized, 

211 ;  used  at  the  consecration  to  any  eccle- 
siastical office,  156. 
Indifferent,  nothing,  432. 
Infant  baptism  unknown  in  the  early  Church, 

162;  first  recognised  in  the  third  century, 

162-165. 
Inner  man,  Paul's  use  of  the  phrase,  395. 
Inspiration,  different  kinds  of,  14&  ;  erroneous 

distinction    between  vitium  conversationi* 

and  error  doctrina,  342. 
Intermediate  state  of  the  soul  between  death 

and  the  resurrection,  481-483. 
Irenaeus  on  the  gift  of  tongues,  17  ;  on  Acts, 

20,  275. 
Isauria,  113. 

James,  the  son  of  Alpheus,  whether  identical 
with  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  322-324. 

James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  his  ministry, 
96,  321-324;  at  the  Apostolic  Council,"  121 
124;  his  speech,  126,  129;  probable  author 
of  the  epistle  from  the  council,  130;  "cer- 
tain ones  from  James"  at  Antioch,  204 ;  ad- 
vises Paul  to  conciliate  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, 282 ;  his  character,  326 ;  led  the  life  of 
a  Nazarene,  325  ;  his  martyrdom,  337  ;  epis- 
tle of,  327-336  ;  the  doctrine  inculcated  in 
it,  49 -i ;  compared  with  the  Pauline  view  of 
justification,  499  ;  the  apparent  differences 
between  the  two  apostles,  502-507. 

James,  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  brother  of 
John,  executed  by  Herod  Agrippa,  106. 

Jason  of  Thessalonica  lodges  Paul,  181. 

Jerusalem,  collection  at  Antioch  for  Church 
at,  106;  Apostolic  Council  at,  120-131; 
Paul's  great  collection  for  the  Church  at, 
250,  272. 

Jesus,  whether  Paul  saw,  during  his  earthly 
life,  83,  84;  memoirs  of,  used  by  Paul, 
101-103. 

Jews,  originally  distinguished  from  Gentiles, 
401 ;  the  predominance  of  the  sensuous 
element  in  their  religious  life,  404;  the 
number  of,  converted  to  Christianity  during 
the  primitive  age,  280. 

John,  the  apostle,  his  parentage,  354 ;  his 
character,  355,  356  ;  wore  the  petalon,  356  ; 
Lesser  Asia  the  scene  of  his  labors,  357- 
360;  his  conflicts  with  Ceriuthus,  362-364; 
whether  he  was  banished  to  Patmos,  364 ; 
was  he  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  ?  365, 
366 ;  the  general  character  of  John's  writ- 
ings, 368 ;  his  Gospel,  368 ;  first  epistle,  371 ; 
its  object,  373 ;  second  epistle,  375 ;   third 


GENERAL   INDEX. 


545 


«pistle,  376  ;  various  traditions  respecting 
John,  377  ;  his  doctrinal  views,  508-531 ; 
compared  with  Paul's,  523. 

John  the  Baptist,  Paul  meets  twelve  of  his 
disciples  at  Ephesus,  210. 

John,  the  presbyter,  368,  375. 

Joppa,  69,  73,  75. 

Joses,  322. 

Judaism,  a  preparative  dispensation,  399, 
456,  489  ;  and  heathenism,  401. 

Judas  (Barsabas),  180,  131. 

Jude,  the  Epistle  of,  its  authorship,  347. 

Judgment,  the  doctrine  of  the,  in  John,  525. 

Justification  and  sanctification,  430  ;  justifica- 
tion bv  faith  alone  asjaught  by  Paul,  180, 
205,  417-421. 

Kingdom  of  God,  its  idea  and  extent,  455- 
459 ;  a  threefold  meaning  to  the  phrase 
with  Paul,  458  ;  its  opposition  to  the  king- 
dom of  evil,  469-472  j  the  development  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  till  its  final  completion, 
472-479. 

Knowledge,  relation  of,  to  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  438. 

Kyria,  a  Christian  lady  to  whom  John's  sec- 
ond Epistle  was  addressed,  375. 

Laodicea,  170. 

Law,  over  valuation  of  the  external  observ- 
ance of,  36,  37  ;  Stephen  the  first  to  oppose 
the  perpetual  validity  of  the  Mosaic,  49 ; 
Paul's  idea  of  law  as  related  to  faith,  381- 
385,  396-100,  421-427  ;  according  to  James, 
Christianity  is  the  "  perfect  law,"  333,  334, 
502,  505. 

Logos,  Paul's  idea  of  the,  460-463 ;  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  494 ;  John's  idea 
of  369,  514 ;  Philo's  conception,  462,  498. 

Lord's  Supper,  its  celebration  in  the  first 
Church,  23  ;  among  the  Gentilo  Christians, 
165;  Paul's  view  of,  453-455;  John  on, 
529,  530. 

Love,  the  fruit  of  faith,  434 ;  greater  than 
faith  and  hope,  440. 

Lucian  quoted,  112. 

Luke,  2-4,  173,  177,  259. 

Luther,  (Paul  and  Augustine),  82 ;  on  the 
apostle  James,  129, 130. 

Lveaonia,  116. 

Lydia,  of  Thyatira,  173. 

Lystra,  116,  168. 

Macedonia,  173.  250,  251-260,  314. 

Maintenance  of  ministers  the  duty  of  the 
Church.  154,  178. 

Marcion,  his  spurious  gospel,  102 ;  character, 
410. 

Mark,  nephew  of  Barnabas,  and  taken  by  him 
to  Antioch,  110,  132;  the  companion  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  111,  132,  167 ;  Peter's 
interpreter  and  companion,  12,  352. 

Marriage  and  celibacy,  different  views  re- 
at  Corinth,  233 ;  views  of  Paul, 


Mars'  Hill,  Paul's  discourse  at,  184-190. 
Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  her  sisters,  354. 
Matthew's  Gospel  possessed  by  Bartholomew 

In  India,  102. 
Meats  offered  to  idols,  disputes  respecting, 

232,  245. 
Mental  with  manual  labor  commended,  179. 


Messiah,  Samaritan  idea  of,  53;  Cornelius' 
expectatiou  of,  70. 

Michael,  archangel,  oratories  dedicated  to 
him,  300. 

Miletus,  Paul  convenes  a  meeting  of  the 
Ephesian  episcopi  at,  274,  309. 

Miracles  in  the  apostolic  period,  39,  63,  113, 
116,  1 76  ;  their  connection  with  Christian- 
ity, 116,  117  ;  the  apostles'  consciousness  of 
power  to  work  miracles,  260;  the  power  to 
work,  a  charism,  145 ;  John  on  the  miracles 
of  Christ,  515,  516. 

Missionaries,  >  or  evangelists,  their  employ- 
ment, 151.* 

Monarchians,  264. 

Mysticism,  whether  there  was  a  tendency  to,  in 
the  Christ-party  at  Corinth,  226  ;  John  the 
representative  of  Christian,  524. 

Nazarite  vow  made  by  Paul,  202. 

Nero's  persecution  of  the  Christians,  265, 311, 

317,  345,  348,  353,  366. 
Nicolaitanes,  sensual  heretics,  360. 
Nicopolis,  317. 
Noachian  precepts,  the,  126. 

Offerings  to  idols,  controversies  at  Corinth 
on  eating  of,  230,  232 ;  Paul  thereon,  245  ; 
eating  of,  a  mark  of  Gnosticism  in  the  sec- 
ond century,  361. 

Officers  of  the  Church,  30-35,  147-156. 

Ordination,  156. 

Palingenesis  of  nature,  480. 

Pamphylia,  113. 

Paphos,  111,  112. 

Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  on  the  Gospel 
of  Mark,  352. 

Parthia,  343. 

Parusie,  or  final  coming  of  Christ  supposed 
.to  be  near  in  the  apostolic  age,  27,  157, 196, 
199,  246,  (hi  1  Peter)  347,  459. 

Patmos,  365. 

Paul,  the  apostle,  his  early  life,  80  ;  a  skilful 
dialectician,  221  ;  conversion,  85  ;  goes  into 
Arabia,  92;  visits  Jerusalem,  94;  obtains 
a  collection  of  our  Lord's  discourses,  101 ; 
returns  to  Tarsus  and  Cilicia,  103 ;  his 
supposed  second  visit  to  Jerusalem,  107; 
accompanied  by  Barnabas,  he  visits  Cy- 
prus, 111;  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  113;  heals 
a  cripple  at  Lystra,  116;  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas supposed  to  be  Zeus  and  Hermes, 
118  ;  present  at  the  Council  at  Jerusalem, 
120 ;  opposed  to  festive  observances,  158 ; 
his  second  missionary  journey,  167  ;  sepa- 
rates from  Barnabas,  167  ;  his  bodily  suf- 
ferings, 171,  218  ;  converts  Lydia,173  ;  casts 
out  a  spirit  of  divination,  174  ;  scourged  at 
Philippi,  176  ;  claims  the  privilege  of  a 
Roman  citizen,  177  ;  visits  Thessalonica, 
178  ;  his  untiring  zeal,  179  ;  visits  Athens, 
182 ;  his  discourse  on  Mars'  Hill,  184-190  ; 
proceeds  to  Corinth,  191 ;  cited  before 
Gallio,  195  ;  his  first  epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  196  ;  his  second  epistle,  200 ;  his 
controversy  with  Peter,  204 ;  revisits  An- 
tioch, 202-207  ;  proceeds  to  Ephesus,  208 ; 
his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  213-217 ;  con- 
troversy with  Apollos,  220-222;  second 
visit  to  Corinth,  240 ;  sends  two  epistles  to 
the  Corinthians,  243-260 ;  a  spurious  epis- 
tle of  Paul's  still  retained  by  the  Armenian 


540 


GENERAL    IXDEX. 


Church,  242  ;  his  wish  to  visit  Rome  on  his 
way  to  Spain,  249;  tumult  at  Ephesus 
against  Paul,  253;  his  journey  to  Macedo- 
nia, 257 ;  vindicates  his  apostolic  character, 

,  260 ;  proceeds  to  Achaia,  281 ;  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  272;  at  Miletus  he 
convenes  the  Ephesian  Episcopi,  274  ;  pro- 
ceeds to  Csesarea  Stratonis,  279  ;  thence  to 
Jerusalem,  279 ;  interview  with  James, 
281 ;  undertakes  a  Nazarite's  vow,  282 ; 
his  conduct  before  Ananias,  283  ;  imprison  ■ 
ed  for  two  years  by  Felix,  285 ;  brought 
before  Agrippa,  286  ;  arrival  at  Rome,  287  ; 
duration  or  his  confinement  there,  288; 
his  relation  to  the  Roman  state,  290;  his 
method  of  refuting  error,  300 ;  sends  epis- 
tles to  the  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  302  ; 
opposes  the  Judaizing  Gnostics,  295-299  ; 
released  from  his  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome,  306  ;  visits  Crete,  315 ;  second  con- 
finement at  Rome,  317  ;  martyrdom,  320 ; 
Tiis  character  contrasted  with  James's,  321 ; 
his  progressive  kuowledge,  484 ;  not  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  333, 
487 ;  his  views  of  justification  compared 
with  those  of  James,  499  ;  pre-eminently 
the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  111,  112,  121. 

Pauline  doctrine,  481 ;  justification  and  works 
of  the  law,  382-385  ;  meaning  of  the  word 
flesh,  385-387  ;  human  depravity,  387  ;  the 
fall  of  man,  388  ;  connection  between  death 
and  sin,  391  ;  revelation  of  God  in  creation, 
392 ;  the  twofold  principle  in  man,  393- 
395  ;  the  state  of  bondage,  395 ;  the  true 
use  of  the  moral  law,  399 ;  hindrances 
and  conditions  of  salvation  in  both  Jews  and 
heathens,  401-405 ;  need  of  redemption  of, 
406-408 ;  the  work  of  redemption  by  Christ, 
408-418 ;  the  idea  of  reconciliation,  412- 
418 ;  the  appropriation  of  salvation  by  faith, 
419-421 :  the  new  life  proceeding  from 
faith,  421-434;  the  principles  of  the  new 
life,  Faith,  Love,  Hope,  434-4.10:  sn^ial 
Christian  virtues  proceeding  rom  these 
principles,  441-446 ;  the  Chi  ;h,  and  the 
Sacraments  of  Baptism  anu  ihe  Lord's 
Supper,  447-455;  the  kingdom  of  God,  its 
idea  and  extent,  455-459  ;  the  opposition  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  to  the  kingdom  of 
evil,  469-472 ;  the  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  till  its  final  completion, 
472—177  ;  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
and  the  state  of  the  soul  after  death,  479- 
484 ;  the  end  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom 
and  the  consummation  of  all  things,  485- 
487. 

Pauline  party  at  Corinth,  220. 

Pentecost,  the  origin  of  this  feast,  8  ;  the  out- 

Eouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  during  its  cele- 
ration,  10-20  ;  the  Church  begun  at,  7. 

Perfection,  Christian,  522. 

Petalum,  or  golden  front-plate,  worn  by 
John,  356. 

Peter,  the  apostle,  his  parentage,  338 ;  char- 
acter, 339-341 ;  call  to  the  apostleship,  339  ; 
a  married  man,  343  ;  discourse  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  18;  his  healing  of  the  lame  man 
and  speech  to  the  people,  39, 40 ;  brought  be- 
fore the  Sanhedrim,  42  ;  visits  the  churches 
founded  at  Lydda,  Joppa,  and  Csesarea 
Stratonis,  69 ;  his  vision  at  Joppa,  73  ;  his 
interview  with  Cornelius,  75  ;  his  relation 
to  Paul,  66,  67,  342 ;  speech  at  the  Apos- 


tolic Council,  125 ;  his  weakness  at  Corinth, 
204 ;  reprimanded  by  Paul,  205  ;  his  labors 
in  propagating  the  Gospel,  342;  his  first 
Epistle,  343  ;  on  the  canonicity  of  his  sec- 
ond Epistle,  347 ;  martyrdom,  348 ;  on  the 
tradition  of  his  visit  to  Rome,  349  ;  and  of 
his  wife's  martyrdom,  353  ;  pre-eminently 
the  apostle  of  the  circumcision,  343. 

Petrine  party  at  Corinth,  219. 

Pharaoh  a  warning  to  the  Jews,  477. 

Pharisees,  at  first  not  hostile  to  Christians, 
38;  their  hostility  awakened  by  Stephen, 
49  ;  the  Pharisaic  training  of  Paul,  and  its 
consequences,  79,  82,  98, 171,  221,  381,  £82, 
398. 

Philemon,  overseer  of  the  Church  at  Colossae, 
291 ;  epistle  to,  293. 

Philip,  the  deacon,  his  preaching  and  mir- 
acles at  Samaria,  60 ;  introduces  the  Gos- 
pel into  Ethiopia,  64 ;  among  the  Gentiles, 
65  ;  his  daughters,  150. 

Philippi,  the  Church  there  planted  by  Paul, 
173-177;  visited  by  Paul,  274. 

Philippian  jailor,  his  conversion  by  Paul,  176. 

Philippians,  Epistle  to,  written  in  prospect  of 
martyrdom,  318. 

Philo,  on  the  Logos,  59,  462 ;  his  mysticism, 
296 ;  relation  to  Eoistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
490,  496-498. 

Phoebe,  deaconess  at  Cenchrsea,  261. 

Phrygia,  land  of  the  Magi,  297  ;  Paul  in,  113, 
170,  207,  241. 

Pisidia,  113,  168. 

Polycarp,  a  traditional  anecdote  from,  respect- 
ing the  apostle  John,  364. 

Polytheism,  its  character,  186  ;  psychological 
origin  of,  187. 

Praxeas,  his  doctrinal  views,  264. 

Predestination,  not  prescience,  with  Paul,  478 ; 
his  meaning,  474-478. 

Presbyters,  or  elders,  their  relation  to  the 
deacons,  32  ;  probable  origin  of  their  office, 
23,  34 ;  identical  with  bishops,  147 ;  rela- 
tion to  the  "  teachers,"  151-155. 

Priesthood,  the,  of  believers,  134, 135;  447. 

Prophets  in  the  early  Church,  their  gifts  and 
offices,  35,  106,  138,  143. 

Proselytes  of  the  Gate,  70, 112,  114,  124, 173, 
195. 

Punishment,  the  idea  of,  416. 

Reconciliation,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  412-417; 
John's,  516,  517. 

Redemption,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  408-418 ; 
John's,  414-418;  the  doctrine  of,  in  He- 
brews, 492-195. 

Restitution,  final,  of  nature,  48,0. 

Resurrection,  the  doctrine  of,  rejected  by  the 
Pharisees,  38,  284 ;  an  offence  to  the  Athe- 
nians, 189 ;  opponents  of  the  doctrine  in 
the  Corinthian  Church,  237-238 ;  opponents 
of  the  doctrine  in  2d  Tim,  319  ;  the  doctrine 
in  Paul's  Epistles,  479-481 ;  in  John,  524- 
526. 

Resurrection,  the,  of  Christ,  its  importance 
to  the  apostles,  89;  the  transition  point 
with  James,  326 :  practical  evidence  oi 
justification  through  him,  411;  view  of, 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  492  ;  in  the 
Gospel  of  John,  526. 

Righteousness,  in  the  Old  Testament  sense. 
205,  383  ;  in  Paul's  sense,  383,  404;  relatior 
of,  and  justification,  417 ;  necessary  distinc- 


GEXERAL   INDEX. 


547 


-  tion  between,  and  holiness,  430 ;  the  right- 
eousness of  Abraham,  according  to  Paul 
and  James,  500  ;  the  oneness  of  Paul's  doc- 
trine of,  with  John's,  523  ;  the  ancient  idea 
of,  corresponds  to  love  among  the  Chris- 
tian virtues,  446. 

Romans,  Epistle  to  the,  on  the  canonicity  of 
the  last  two  chapters,  261,  262  ;  summary  of 
its  leading  topics,  265-268 ;  Chap.  ix.  ex- 
pounded, 474,  475. 

Rome,  Christians  not  banished  thence  with 
the  Jews  by  Claudius,  192, 193  ;  the  Church 
of,  its  earliest  members,  263  ;  Paul's  inten- 
tion to  visit  them,  249,  261  ;  the  Pauline 
doctrine  originally  -professed  there,  265: 
Paul's  Epistle  to  them,  265-271 ;  practical 
difference  among  them,  267-271 ;  Paul  at 
Rome,  287-305  ;  freed  from  his  second  im- 
prisonment there,  306-316 ;  second  im- 
prisonment at,  and  martyrdom,  317-320; 
tradition  of  Peter's  martyrdom  at,  348-355. 

Sacraments,  celebration  of  the,  160  ;  Paul's 
doctrine  of,  451-455  ;  John's,  528-530. 

Sadduceeism  described,  238. 

Sadduceea,  the  first  persecutors  of  the  Church, 
38,  45  ;  opponents  of  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection at  Corinth,  238. 

Salamis  and  Cyprus,  111. 

Salvation,  417. 

Samaria,  introduction  of  the  Gospel  into,  58. 

Satan,  according  to  Paul,  469-472  ;  in  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  492 ;  according  to 
James,  507  ;  to  John,  510-511. 

Sergius  Paul  us,  his  conversion,  112. 

Shepherd  of  Hermas,  264, 

Sicarii,  notorious  assassins,  276. 

Silas,  or  Silvanus,  Paul's  fellow-laborer,  131, 
168,  344,  352;  the  bearer  of  Peter's  first 
Epistle,  346. 

Simon  the  Sorcerer,  his  character,  59-64  ;  his 
disputation  with  Peter,  351. 

Simonianism,  its  pantheistic  tendency,  24. 

Sin,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  385-408  ;  its  inex- 
plicability,  465,  469  ;  James's  view  of,  507, 
508;  John's,  523. 

Slavery  antagonistic  to  Christianity,  247. 

Soteriology.    See  Redemption,. 

Soul,  its  state  after  death  till  the  resurrec- 
tion, 4S1-484. 

Spain.  Paul's  visit  into,  250,  294,  307,  311, 
812,  317. 

Spirit,  soul  and  body,  394 ;  relation  of  flesh 

^  and  spirit  in  believers,  428. 

Spirit,  the  Holy,  outpourings  of,  at  Pentecost, 
10;  on  the  Samaritans,  62 ;  on  Cornelius 
and  his,  76 ;  on  the  disciples  of  John  at 
Ephesus,  211 ;  not  magical,  but  according 
to  law  in  its  operation,  22,  47,  91,  150. 

Spirits,  a  world  of,  relation  of  kingdom  of  God 
to,  459. 

Stephanas  and  his  family,  146,  156,  162. 

Stephen,  the  proto-martyr,  47-67;  the  fore- 
runner of  Paul,  50. 

Stoic  philosophers  at  Athens,  183. 

Sufferings  ofChrist,  doctrine  of  the,  in  Paul's 


writings,  408-410 ;  in  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, 494,  495  ;  in,  John,  517,   518. 

Sunday,  origin  of  its  religious  observance, 
158,  159. 

Synagogue,  how  far  it  was  a  model  for  the 
first  churches,  28-30,  32-34. 

Syria  and  Cilicia,  130,  131. 

Tarsus,  80,  103,  177. 

Teachers  (8ifiao-<r«Aoi\  their  office,  35  ;  main- 
tained by  the  Church,  154. 

Tertullian,  his  testimony  respecting  Peter's 
manner  of  death,  348 ;  on  speaking  with 
tongues,  17. 

Thessalonica,  the  Church  there  visited  by 
Paul  and  Silas,  178 ;  Paul  sends  Timot In- 
to, 191  ;  his  painful  report  from,  196'; 
Paul's  first  Epistle  to  this  Church,  196  ;  his 
second,  200. 

Theudas's  sedition,  45. 

Timothy,  Paul's  fellow-laborer,  168,169;  at 
Philippi,  177,  182;  at  Corinth,  250,251; 
at  Rome,  30S;  his  Mission  to  Macedonia 
and  Achaia,  250;  Paul's  second  Epistle  to 
him,  306-310  ;  on  the  canonicity  of  his  first 
Epistle,  312-314  ;  his  release  from  confine- 
ment, 320. 

Titus,  his  circumcision  opposed  by  Paul, 
124;  who  chooses  him  as  a  fellow-laborer. 
121  ;  is  the  bearer  of  an  Epistle  from  Paul 
to  the  Corinthians,  253,  259  ;  left  at  Crete 
by  Paul,  315  ;  Epistle  to  him,  315-317. 

Tongues,  supernatural  gift  of,  on  the  feast  of 
Pentecost,  11-18  ;  at  Corinth,  13  ;  overesti- 
mated at  Corinth,  237. 

Trichotomy  of  man,  Paul's,  394. 

Trinity,  the  basis  of  the  doctrine,  worship- 

ging  the    Father  through  the  Son  by  the 
loly  Spirit,  530. 
Troas,"  173,  257,  274,  309. 
Trophimus,  283,  309. 
Truth,  John's  fundamental  idea  of,  509. 
Truthfulness.     See  Veracity. 
Tychicus,  a  missionary  assistant  of  Paul,  and 

bearer  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and 

the  Ephesians,  302. 
Tyrannus,  the  rhetorician,  209. 

Veracity,  as  taught  by  Paul  and  James,  506. 

Virtues,  the  cardinal,  445,  446. 

Vision,  the,  of  Stephen,  59  ;  of  Cornelius,  72  ; 
of  Peter,  74;  of  Paul,  at  Damascus,  92;  in 
the  temple,  103  ;  at  Troas,  173  ;  that  men- 
tioned in  2d  Corinthians  not  identical  with 
Paul's  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  88. 

Vow,  Paul's  explained,  202,  282. 

Will,  freedom  of,  not  denied  by  Paul,  477  ; 
specially  taught  by  James,  507. 

Wisdom,  444,  445. 

Women  not  .allowed  to  speak  in  publio  as- 
semblies, 149,  154,  236. 

Work  ofChrist,  the,  408-411. 

Wrath  of  God,  the,  414. 

Zeus,  the  tutelar  deity  of  Lystra,  118. 


17192TB   165 

10-02-03  32180      MC 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012  01212   9161 


